Colantoni, Collins, Marren, Phillips & Tulk

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 22
• Van Nuys 11
• Oakland 8
• Anaheim 7
• Marina del Rey 5
• Los Angeles 3
• Sacramento 3
• San Francisco 3
• San Diego 2
• Fresno 1
• Long Beach 1
• Oxnard 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 34 for the defense
• 15 for the applicant
• 11 returned for more record

Counted over 58 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ8015380 · 2026-06-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.18For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the July 2, 2019 Findings and Order is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board deferred the issue of application of section 3600.5(b) because the question of Ohio's reciprocity statute effective date requires further factual development at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ13797705 · 2026-06-09 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 26, 2022 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim because he was not hired in California, did not regularly work here, and because California has no legitimate interest in his cumulative injury claim. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because he was in fact hired in California and/or regularly employed here, thereby establishing subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivisions (a). 2 We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Specifically, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:

  The WCJ found no jurisdiction because applicant was not hired or regularly employed in California, but reconsideration was granted to consider the impact of the Court of Appeal decision Gandy (2025) which interprets 'hire' under section 3600.5 and favors a liberal construction to find California jurisdiction when a California-based team is involved.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9477566 · 2026-05-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the supplemental briefing, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, because we conclude that (1) section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply to the claim, but that (2) the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, a necessary factual predicate to application of those subdivisions.

  The Board concluded that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply, but the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, which is necessary to apply those subdivisions.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10173387 · 2025-09-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The second finding of fact, that applicant was not injured by reason of any serious and willful misconduct of the employer defendant, Recess Holdings/First Group, is based on the vehicle inspection report admitted without objection as Defendant's Exhibit II, and applicant's testimony describing that report and her inspection and use of the vehicle that she was driving on the morning of her awarded work injury of August 30, 2015. According to the report, although there was an electrical short in the vehicle the previous day, the mechanic had said the vehicle was "OK TO DRIVE." Applicant and her employer were both equally justified in relying upon this representation in the report in assuming that the vehicle was safe to operate. This assumption proved

  The employer was justified in relying on a mechanic's inspection report that the vehicle was safe to drive, and there was no evidence of willful misconduct by a supervisory person with knowledge of the risk. Applicant did not meet the burden to show serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13783750 · 2025-08-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 14, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that while employed as a truck driver for defendant during the period from September 3, 2019 through October 19, 2020 (ADJ13783750), applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the head, cervical spine, back, arm, and knees. The WCJ also found a separate July 25, 2020 (ADJ16743471) injury AOE/COE to the head, cervical and lumbar spine, knees, and legs. The WCJ found no injury AOE/COE for applicant's internal claims of diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

  Substantial evidence supports injury AOE/COE findings for these body parts.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11706407 · 2025-04-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that the record is clear as to whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion applies. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

  The WCAB found that the issues of jurisdiction and res judicata were not clearly resolved in the prior order and that reconsideration was necessary to fully study the factual and legal issues.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10789547 · 2025-03-24 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the WCJ for further development of the record on the issue of whether applicant was hired in California, because we conclude in the absence of a

  The Board concluded that the claim is barred under section 3600.5(d) unless applicant can establish he was hired in California on at least one contract during the relevant period. The matter is remanded for further development of the record on this issue.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14950155 · 2025-03-24 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.10In this case, the WCJ relied upon Dr. Baum's reporting that applicant could not have contracted COVID-19 on November 18, 2020, because the maximum latency period between exposure to COVID-19 and development of symptoms is 14 days, and applicant first tested positive for the virus on December 23, 2020.

  The WCJ's reliance on Dr. Baum's opinion was found to be unsupported by adequate clinical history and reasoning, thus not substantial medical evidence. The Appeals Board found the medical record deficient and ordered further development to determine if the applicant's COVID-19 infection was more likely acquired at work or from other sources.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ8809936 · 2024-06-21 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 et seq.

  The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the jurisdictional and liability issues raised by NJMIC, deferring final decision pending further review of the entire record and applicable law.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13379668 · 2024-06-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Regarding the issue of sanctions against lien claimant, we note that the burden of proof rests on the party holding the affirmative of an issue. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) In this case, it was applicant who raised a claim for the imposition of sanctions against lien claimant. However, applicant did not file a petition asserting the specific allegations in accordance with our rules. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10510.) Nevertheless, because applicant is seeking the imposition of a sanction under section 5813, he carried the burden of proof on that issue. To meet that burden, applicant was required to prove each fact supporting the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, WCAB Rules provide, in relevant part: (1) that "[e]very petition for reconsideration... shall fairly state all the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue [and] [e]ach contention contained in a petition for reconsideration... shall be separately stated and clearly set forth" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945 and (2) that "a petition for reconsideration... may be denied or dismissed if it is unsupported by specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10972.)

  Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for sanctions against the lien claimant; no specific references to the record or persuasive evidence were provided.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ10501198 · 2024-05-17 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsmixed

  Determinative passage · p.20The parties also dispute whether applicant's claims both his specific injury claim and his cumulative trauma claim are barred by the statute of limitations found in section 5405, which generally requires that a claim for benefits be commenced within one year of the date of injury, or within one year of the last time any benefits were provided. However, if an employer furnishes medical treatment for an injury, the one-year limitation of section 5405 is tolled, and the injured worker may instead avail himself of the five-year period to commence an action under section 5410. (McDaniel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1016-1017.) "In other words, after the voluntary furnishing of benefits, including medical treatment, section 5410 extends the period within which an original proceeding may be instituted from one to five years." (Ibid., at p. 117.) The one-year limitations period of section 5405 then begins to run again "once a potential claimant has been fully informed that the employer and its carrier disclaim compensation liability for an industrial injury[.]" (Ibid.) The burden of proof for demonstrating

  Applicant's specific injury claim is not barred by section 5405 due to receipt of medical treatment triggering the longer limitations period under section 5410; the cumulative trauma claim's statute of limitations status requires further development of the date of injury under section 5412.

  Official decision · page 20 →
• ADJ10616244 · 2024-04-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 8, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that that there was no employment on the date of injury.

  The WCJ initially found no employment on the date of injury, but the WCAB found the WCJ's credibility determinations and application of Labor Code section 2705.5 insufficient and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 14.

• COLANTONI, COLLINS, MARREN, PHILLIPS & TULK
• COLANTONI, COLLINS, MARREN, PHILLIPS & TULK, LLP
• Colantoni, Collins, Marren, Phillips & Tulk
• COLANTONI COLLINS MARREN PHILLIPS & TULK
• Colantoni, Collins, Marren, Phillips & Tulk, LLP
• COLANTONI COLLINS
• Colantoni Collins Marren Phillips & Tulk
• COLANTONI, COLLINS, MARREN, ET AL.
• COLANTONI COLLINS MARREN PHILLIPS & TULK, LLP
• COLANTONI COLLINS MARREN PHILLIPS & TULK LLP
• Colantoni, Collins, Phillips, Marren & Tulk
• COLANTONI COLLINS MARIN PHILLIPS & TULK

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.