David Jane & Associates

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 7
• Anaheim 3
• Redding 3
• Lodi 2
• Fresno 1
• Pomona 1
• San Diego 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.

• 9 for the defense
• 5 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 14 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.

• ADJ20172102 · 2026-05-15 · Lodi District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, as explained above, the notice of hearing for November 19. 2025 did not identify the hearing as an in person hearing, so that a failure to appear in person cannot be the basis for the NIT. Moreover, the initial NIT in the MOH of November 19, 2025 indicated an intent to sanction "David Jane & Associates." The later Order for sanctions actually sanctioned both David Na and David Jane & Associates. The inclusion of David Na should have triggered a new notice of intent as it includes, for all intents and purposes, a separate party. As result, the order is null and void as the precipitating notice did not include both parties and therefore, they were not given notice and opportunity to be heard.

  The WCAB found that the notice of hearing did not clearly require in-person appearance or identify Mr. Na as required to appear, and that due process was not satisfied. The record did not demonstrate bad faith or support the sanctions imposed.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ13057590 · 2025-08-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeSJDB voucherdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 12, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the F&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found defendant produced proof of service for a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV), and under Evidence Code section 641, it is presumed that the defendant timely mailed the SJDV and the SJDV was received, and defendant acted reasonably and timely in replacing the voucher upon notice of actual non-receipt. The WCJ also found that though the voucher was not in fact received by applicant, applicant failed in their burden of proof to rebut the presumption and was not entitled to a penalty.

  The Appeals Board found that defendant produced proof of service for the voucher, invoking the presumption under Evidence Code section 641 that the voucher was mailed and received. Applicant failed to produce believable contrary evidence to rebut this presumption. The WCJ and Appeals Board found no unreasonable delay warranting penalties or attorney fees.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14808720 · 2022-05-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3(4) Approval of a plan may be denied, revoked, or suspended if the medical provider network fails to meet the requirements of this article. Any person contending that a medical provider network is not validly constituted may petition the administrative director to suspend or revoke the approval of the medical provider network.... Unless suspended or revoked by the administrative director, the administrative director's approval of a medical provider network shall be binding on all persons and all courts. A determination of the administrative director may be reviewed only by an appeal of the determination of the administrative director filed as an original proceeding before the reconsideration unit of the workers' compensation appeals board on the same grounds and within the same time limits after issuance of the determination as would be applicable to a petition for reconsideration of a decision of a workers' compensation administrative law judge.... (Lab. Code, § 4616, emphasis added.)2

  The WCAB found it lacked jurisdiction to declare the MPN invalid because the administrative director had approved it and no petition to suspend or revoke the MPN approval was filed; thus, the issue of MPN validity was not properly before the Board.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12265568 · 2022-04-22 · San Diego District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, it appears that following applicant's injury and initial treatment at Concentra, applicant was provided with work restrictions, including push/pull limitations, weight-bearing and squatting/kneeling restrictions. (Ex. 19, Concentra encounter note, dated January 11, 2019.) Applicant testified to providing copies of the work restrictions to the employer (January 13, 2021 MINUTES, at 6:1), and the reporting from Concentra was among the documents contained in applicant's subpoenaed personnel file. (Ex. 21, Subpoenaed records of Mann vs Pest, p.MVP000059.) The record reflects no bona fide offer of modified duties conforming to applicant's work restrictions made by the defendant directly following applicant's injury. Applicant continued to seek medical treatment for his injuries, initially with the Concentra Clinic, and later with Glen Nusbaum, D.C. The record reflects no good faith offer of modified duties through at least May, 2019.

  The employer failed to prove it made a good faith offer of modified work within applicant's restrictions, so the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from January 11, 2019 to present.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13827102 · 2021-11-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6His report included a review of medical and physical therapy reports from March of 2016 up through March 4, 2021. He specifically indicated that he did not have any of the records from Dr. Pazmino. On this basis this judge found the PQME Thomas Vangsness, M.D., dated May 7, 2021 to be substantial medical evidence on the issue of applicant's temporary total disability status. This judge did not find that the failure to review the unsigned report of Dr. Pazmino, a doctor who did not perform a physical examination, to undermine the substantiality of PQME Vangsness' report.

  PQME Thomas Vangsness, M.D.'s report was found to be substantial medical evidence supporting applicant's temporary total disability; Dr. Pazmino's report was excluded as inadmissible and applicant's testimony was found credible.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13073418 · 2021-07-19 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9It is well settled that a defendant is liable for treatment for a nonindustrial condition if it is reasonable and necessary to aid in the treatment of an injured workers' injuries. If there is a dispute regarding whether applicant's diabetic condition was aggravated or accelerated by the industrial injury then the treating physician would be allowed at defendant's expense to refer the applicant to a secondary treating physician in internal medicine for a medical-legal evaluation on the issue of causation of that body part.

  The court found substantial evidence supporting the need for an internal medicine consultation to evaluate diabetes causation and treatment related to the industrial injury and denied reconsideration on this issue.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ18697538 · 2025-10-31 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, it appears that defendant failed to appear for an expedited hearing, failed to respond to an order to show cause, and failed to respond to a notice of intention to impose sanctions and costs. We have treated defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as a request for relief from what is essentially a default judgment of sanctions and costs on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) We will return this to the trial level to evaluate defendant's arguments in the first instance. The trial judge may conduct appropriate proceedings prior to deciding the issue of sanctions and costs. We make no judgment as to the merits of the Order issued.

  The Appeals Board treated the petition as a request for relief from default judgment of sanctions and costs due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings without ruling on the merits of the sanctions order.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ7760148 · 2024-08-27 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on June 14, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition for reconsideration, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14111346 · 2024-06-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On May 10, 2024, defendant LA PILLOW & FIBER, insured by SIRIUSPOINT AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, filed a Petition for Removal regarding the April 15, 2024 Minute Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). On June 6, 2024, the WCJ issued an Order of Dismissal of Party Defendant dismissing petitioner without prejudice. Due to this development, it appears the Petition for Removal is moot and will be dismissed.

  The WCJ dismissed the petitioner without prejudice, making the Petition for Removal moot, so the WCAB panel dismissed the petition accordingly.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15790103 · 2023-11-16 · Anaheim District OfficeOther disputed issuedeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration1, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

  The matter was pending reconsideration and a proposed settlement was reached, requiring the decision to be rescinded and returned to the WCJ for settlement consideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14969631 · 2022-11-18 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration filed on September 19, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13827102 · 2022-03-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.

  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. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• DAVID JANE & ASSOCIATES
• DAVID JANE AND ASSOCIATES
• David Jane & Associates

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.