Employer Defense Group

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Anaheim 4
• Pomona 4
• Los Angeles 3
• Long Beach 2
• Oxnard 1
• Riverside 1
• San Bernadino 1
• San Bernardino 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 11 for the defense
• 6 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 19 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

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

• ADJ19102087 · 2026-08-25 · Anaheim District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3This matter involves a claim for death benefits by the widow of an injured worker who sustained a sudden cardiac arrest and died on November 10, 2023 while at the place and during the period of his employment. (F&O, Opinion on Decision, p. 1.) While the QME in this case states that stress from decedent’s employment contributed to the cause of his sudden cardiac arrest and death, there is no claim for psychiatric injury. (See Applications for Adjudication of Claim- Death, April 8, 2024 and April 29, 2024.) “Stress is not a diagnosis, disease, or syndrome. It is a nonspecific set of emotions or physical symptoms that may or may not be associated with a disease or syndrome. Whether or not stress contributes to a disease or syndrome depends on the vulnerability of the individual, the intensity, duration, and meaning of the stress; and the nature and availability of modifying resources.” (American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition at p. 1055.) However, stress may cause a physical injury or a psychiatric injury or both.

  The WCJ and Board found substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Fischer that stress from decedent’s employment contributed to his sudden cardiac arrest and death, meeting the standard that employment need only be a contributing cause of death for compensability under Labor Code and case law. Defendant’s challenges to the medical evidence and applicant’s credibility were rejected.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11351201 · 2026-05-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on February 27, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his eyes, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, fingers, legs, ankles, circulatory and excretory system, and psyche and ordered that applicant take nothing on his claims.

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to resolve conflicting medical opinions on industrial causation, including orthopedic, neurological, and psychiatric claims, requiring further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15972441 · 2026-04-06 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Next, applicant argues that the June 2, 2025 report by PTP Dr. Hannani "contained new and significant medical findings" requiring that defendant conduct a new UR despite the May 20, 2025 UR denial of the same surgery recommended in Dr. Hannani's May 9, 2025 report. However, based on a line-by-line comparison of Dr. Hannani's May 9, 2025 and June 2, 2025 reports, it is noted that the reports are identical except for 4 paragraphs at the bottom of page 3 of the June 2, 2025 report. In other words, the sections of the reports under the headings of Subjective Complaints, Objective Complaints, Motor Examination, Sensation, Reflexes, Lower Extremities Examination, Bilateral Hips, Vascular Examination, Diagnosis, Prescriptions Given and Disability Status are word for word the same.

  The June 2, 2025 report by PTP Dr. Hannani did not identify any material change in the applicant's medical condition subsequent to the May 20, 2025 utilization review denial. The reports were nearly identical except for clarifying paragraphs that did not constitute new evidence. Applicant's testimony of worsening symptoms did not specify a material change after the May 20, 2025 denial. Therefore, no new utilization review was required and the June 5, 2025 deferral was reasonable.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ19266826 · 2026-01-09 · Long Beach District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.74061 and section 4062. (Joint Exh. 2 - PTP Objection Letter dated 3/12/25.) As discussed below,

  The WCAB found that applicant's objection letter met the requirements of Labor Code section 4061, entitling her to a QME panel under section 4062.2, and that the WCJ's invalidation of the QME panel was incorrect and caused significant prejudice to applicant.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11204383 · 2025-09-29 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12As noted above, two PQMEs with relevant expertise, Internist Dr. Ross and Neurologist Dr. Gorinstein, found after evaluating the applicant and reviewing his extensive treatment record that his strokes were caused by a non-industrial condition, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, and that his employment did not contribute to them. They both supported their findings appropriately, and their reports and findings meet the standards for substantial medical evidence set forth in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621. There is no medical evidence in the record that counters their findings, and no reports from other doctors in their respective areas of expertise. The applicant's neurological injury is therefore found non-industrial.

  Two PQMEs with relevant expertise found the applicant's strokes were caused by a non-industrial condition, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, and employment did not contribute to them. No medical evidence contradicted their findings.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ18961005 · 2025-09-23 · San Bernadino District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8However, the record does not reflect whether the WCJ initially determined that applicant met her burden of establishing the employment presumption, and, if so, whether defendant rebutted the employment presumption under either the Business and Professions Code section 7451 (Proposition 22) test or the section 2775 ABC test.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ may have misapplied the burden of proof and the substantive provisions of Business and Professions Code section 7451, requiring further review.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ18205051 · 2024-06-17 · Anaheim District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports the finding that applicant failed to comply with AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C).

  Applicant's proof of service did not show service of all required documents under AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C); thus, the QME panel was invalid.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16359966 · 2024-04-23 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Shortly before the scheduled end of the lunch break at 3:00 a.m., an automobile collided into the bus stop where Gus, Giovanni, and the Applicant were waiting. (MOE/SOE Dec 5, 2023, pg. 6, lines 3; 8-10.) As a result of this incident, the Applicant alleged to have sustained injuries to his legs, head, neck, hips, left hand, left middle finger, left ring finger, right knee, right ankle, left ear, vision, psyche, and in the form of loss of consciousness and depression. (Id., pg. 2, lines 5-9.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found the injury was within the special risk exception to the going and coming rule because the applicant was waiting for employer-provided transportation and engaged in reasonable activities within the field of risk created by the employment.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ15809866 · 2024-04-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a February 22, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found good cause for the issuance of additional Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) panels in the specialties of ophthalmology, neurology, and psychiatry based upon the opinion of the orthopedic QME, Dr. Joanne Halbrecht, who recommended QMEs in those specialties after finding applicant's claims of injury to her "head, eyes, and stress" to be outside her area of expertise. (F&O, p. 3.)

  The orthopedic QME, Dr. Joanne Halbrecht, recommended additional QME panels in specialties outside her expertise due to applicant's claims of injury to head, eyes, and stress, establishing good cause for additional panels.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15229971 · 2023-03-17 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Whether an employee's injury arose out of and in the course of employment is generally a question of fact to be determined in light of the particular circumstances of the case. (Wright v. Beverly Fabrics (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 51].)

  The injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the employer strongly encouraged vaccination to reduce absences and maintain workforce availability, and the vaccination substantially benefited the employer. The applicant's injury from vaccine side effects is compensable under established case law even though vaccination was not mandatory.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18995801 · 2026-09-10 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, as explained below, we agree with defendant that the Order to produce documents caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm because defendant was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In addition, without a record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ appropriately issued the Order. Thus, we will rescind the decision. Parties to a workers’ compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is “one of ‘the rudiments of fair play’ assured to every litigant....” (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal.

  The WCAB found that the defendant was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Order to Produce was issued, causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, and that the WCJ's decision lacked a record to determine good cause for the order, thus requiring rescission and return for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17568026 · 2026-01-21 · Anaheim 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

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued. Defendant also failed to timely file a petition for disqualification with required affidavit under penalty of perjury.

  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.

• EMPLOYER DEFENSE GROUP, LLP
• EMPLOYER DEFENSE GROUP
• Employer Defense Group
• EMPLOYER DEFENSE LAW ANAHEIM
• Employer Defense Group, LLP

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.