Dimaculangan & Associates

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 32
• Long Beach 11
• Anaheim 9
• Los Angeles 5
• Long Beach Office 1
• Oakland 1
• Oxnard 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 26 for the applicant
• 22 for the defense
• 15 returned for more record

Counted over 59 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.

• ADJ13582881 · 2026-06-26 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of March 16, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed as an assistant manager applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of a hernia and to the low back, causing the need for further medical treatment. Industrial injury to the hernia had been accepted by the defendant, but injury to the low back was contested. All other issues including date of injury, temporary disability, and permanent disability were deferred.

  The Appeals Board found substantial evidence supporting industrial injury to the low back based on the entire medical record and credible applicant testimony, favoring the treating physician's opinions over the PQME Dr. Shah's contrary opinion.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• 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 →
• ADJ11324273 · 2026-06-01 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on March 16, 2026, of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)'s February 17, 2026, Joint Findings, Award & Order (FA&O), in which, as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained 57% disability in ADJ11728160, the cumulative claim.

  The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to rebut the AMA Guides impairment ratings and denied the claim for 100% disability under the presumption of total disability for loss of both hands or use thereof.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16089982 · 2026-02-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Accordingly, we concur with the WCJ's determination that the reports of Michael Einbund, M.D., Rosabel Young, M.D., Michael Wells, M.D., and Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., are admissible in proceedings before the WCAB, and may further be submitted for review by the appropriately selected panel QMEs in this matter. We express no opinion as to the evidentiary weight the reports should be accorded, either by the QMEs selected by the parties pursuant to current section 4060 and 4062.2, or by the WCJ.

  The WCJ correctly admitted applicant's self-procured medical reports obtained under former section 4060 as they were obtained prior to the parties' selection of QMEs under current sections 4060 and 4062.2, and not solely to rebut the panel QME's opinion. Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the reports' admissibility.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ11685054 · 2025-12-12 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7In the QME Report of July 20, 2019, QME Dr. Hurria stated that applicant suffered from an industrial injury AOE/COE. (LC Ex. 1, p. 19.) Based on applicant's recounting of the incident, Dr. Hurria reported that the injury was specific and occurred in October 2018, when applicant held a falling pallet in place for approximately 10 minutes. (LC Ex. 1, pp. 3, 14-17.) The QME report included a history of the injury according to applicant, pre-existing injuries, a physical examination, and a review of applicant's medical records and his deposition before concluding that the injury was industrial. (LC Ex. 1, pp. 2-19.) In the QME report of November 7, 2019, Dr. Hurria again concluded that applicant had suffered an industrial injury that was specific in nature. (LC Ex. 1, p. 36.)

  Substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Kesho Hurria supports a finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE on October 15, 2018, meeting the lien claimant's burden of proof.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ8828773 · 2025-10-15 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3limitations. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 4, 5.) The WCJ determined that applicant's injuries caused 87 percent permanent partial disability after apportionment of 5 percent of applicant's right knee disability to a prior injury, and that permanent disability indemnity payments commenced on March 24, 2014. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 8, 9.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explained that the conclusions reached by applicant's orthopedic evaluator were not substantial evidence to support the award of temporary disability. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 12.) The WCJ reviewed the submitted medical record and ultimately determined that the reports of Drs. Einbund and Glatstein were the most persuasive. Based thereon, the WCJ determined that applicant sustained 87 percent permanent disability with 5 percent apportionment of applicant's right knee disability. (Id. at pp. 15-16.)

  The WCJ relied on the medical reports of Drs. Einbund and Glatstein and found 87% permanent disability with 5% apportionment to a prior injury, and defendant failed to meet its burden to prove further apportionment.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13556390 · 2025-08-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.10IV. Accordingly, we grant defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, and 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.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether defendants are exempt from California jurisdiction under Labor Code § 3600.5(b) and related exemptions, deferring final decision pending further review.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ8716925 · 2025-05-27 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 19, 2025. Therein and as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to his back, head, bilateral shoulders, neck, bilateral hernia, psyche, right arm, bilateral wrists and hands, and fingers during the period November 17, 1997 through January 8, 2013. The WCJ found that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 61%.

  The Appeals Board found the record was not properly developed with respect to catastrophic injury and psychiatric impairment, noting lack of substantial medical opinion on activities of daily living (ADLs) related to the psychiatric injury and the use of sub-rosa videos without medical evaluation. The Board granted reconsideration to allow further development of the record and deferred final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8078762 · 2025-01-27 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5A lien claimant holds the burden of proof to establish all elements necessary to establish its entitlement to payment for a medical-legal expense. (See Lab. Code, § 3205.5, 5705; Torres v. AJC Sandblasting (2012) 77 Cal.Comp.Cases 1113, 1115 [2012 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 160] (Appeals Board en banc).) Thus, a lien claimant is required to establish that: 1) a contested claim existed at the time the expenses were incurred; 2) the expenses were incurred for the purpose of proving or disproving the contested claim; and 3) the expenses were reasonable and necessary at the time they were incurred. (Lab. Code, § 4620, 4621, 4622(f); Colamonico v. Secure Transport, (2019) 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 1059 (Appeals Board en banc).)

  The Appeals Board found that the cost petitioner met its burden to show a contested claim existed when the expenses were incurred and that the subpoenaing of records from the prior attorney and treating physician was reasonable and necessary, overruling the WCJ's contrary findings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16477989 · 2025-01-17 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, there are three reasons that the WCJ's November 1, 2024 F&O, including the finding that applicant did not make a showing of good cause to oppose the NIT to submit, and the order that the matter stands submitted, must be rescinded. First, the WCJ's decision must be based on "admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 476), but the F&O entered here are not supported by an adequate evidentiary record. The available evidence appears to demonstrate that defendant did not provide adequate notice of hearing to applicant. Defendant was designated pursuant to WCAB Rule 10629 to serve the August 28, 2024 minutes, but its September 6, 2024 proof of service for those minutes stated, incorrectly, "Trial On 8/28/24," thus giving the false impression that a trial had already occurred on August 28, 2024. (9/6/24 POS; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10629.) Defendant's proof of service contained no indication that the matter had been set for trial, nor any indication that the trial date was set for September 30, 2024. (Ibid.) In addition, defendant failed to timely serve and file a Notice of Hearing for the September 30, 2024 trial date. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10750.) Instead, nearly two weeks after the trial date had

  The record did not show that applicant received adequate notice of the September 30, 2024 trial; defendant's proof of service was misleading and did not indicate the correct trial date, and no proper Notice of Hearing was timely served or admitted into evidence. Applicant was not given an opportunity to rebut the presumption of receipt or to be heard, violating due process.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ6579284 · 2024-11-05 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2ultimately may be entitled to an award of 75% permanent disability, we conclude that the WCJ

  The Board concluded that the WCJ must revisit the issue of potential liability and jurisdiction over all teams who employed applicant during the cumulative trauma period, including the Detroit Lions, St. Louis Rams, and Denver Broncos, as the prior findings of insufficient contacts and dismissal of the Denver Broncos were premature and require further development of the record and consideration of due process and substantial justice interests.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ313572 · 2024-11-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeSJDB voucherremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The April 4, 2019 Findings and Order does not take into account these facts. It simply points to the Compromise and Release to show that the parties settled the voucher. However, given the facts above, it is unclear whether the voucher in question was in dispute at the time of the Compromise and Release and therefore subject to settlement. It is also troubling that applicant was not present at trial and claims he did not understand he was settling his entitlement to the voucher. For these reasons, we rescind the April 4, 2019 Findings and Order and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The WCAB found it unclear whether the SJDB voucher was in dispute or subject to settlement at the time of the Compromise and Release, and that applicant was not aware he was settling the voucher, warranting further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 5 →

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.

• DIMACULANGAN & ASSOCIATES
• DIMACULANGAN ASSOCIATES
• Dimaculangan & Associates
• DIMACULANGAN AND ASSOCIATES
• Dimaculangan and 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.