England, Ponticello & St. Clair

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• San Diego 12
• Los Angeles 4
• Van Nuys 4
• Anaheim 3
• Long Beach 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 10 for the applicant
• 10 for the defense
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 23 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.

• ADJ16834660 · 2025-08-21 · Anaheim District OfficeLiensmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Medland Medical (lien claimant) petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 31, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a landscaper from April 17, 2021 to April 17, 2022, sustained industrial injury to his bilateral upper extremities. The WCJ also found, in relevant part, that lien claimant is not entitled to reimbursement of medical treatment and medical-legal reporting costs for services rendered prior to the denial of the claim on January 13, 2023, and that lien claimant is entitled to payment for medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial, but that the evidentiary record was inadequate to determine the value of medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial.

  The WCAB found the evidentiary record inadequate to determine the value of medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial but approved the settlement stipulation for lien reimbursement.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13368607 · 2025-02-24 · San Diego District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the November 27, 2024 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein and as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his left ring and left middle finger, neck, right upper extremity including shoulder, forearm, hand, in the form of a diagnosis of CRPS, and psyche in the form of PTSD while employed as a lube technician on May 16, 2020. The WCJ further found that the Petition to Replace Panel QME Reiss is denied and that applicant is permanently totally disabled.

  The WCJ found no good cause to delay trial for QME Reiss to review sub rosa video; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the issue.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10172107 · 2024-07-15 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of April 25, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed by the Zoological Society of San Diego during a cumulative period ending January 1, 1997, applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of myeloma. It was found that the sole carrier insuring the employer during the Labor Code section 5500.5 liability period was Fremont Insurance Company. On July 2, 2003, Fremont went into liquidation, and CIGA took over its California claims. CIGA is an entity created by statute in 1969 to create a fund from which insureds can seek recourse if their insurer becomes insolvent. CIGA is not an insurance company, but is required to pay statutorily defined covered claims. (Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 548, 556-557 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 1661].) In the instant case, it was found that CIGA was solely liable for any benefits due to the applicant as a result of the industrial injury.

  The WCJ's finding that the period of injurious exposure was from January 1, 1996 to January 1, 1997 was supported by credible testimony of the applicant, a co-employee's declaration, and medical expert opinions, which the WCAB adopted and affirmed on reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15489825 · 2024-06-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In the case at hand, the applicant, a full-time salaried custody assistant who worked for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department inside the Inmate Reception Center, was charged with supervising up to15 male inmates daily and authorized to search or detain them. She was also responsible for booking and releasing inmates. The fact that she wore a duty belt with law enforcement equipment including handcuffs, pepper spray, a radio and a flashlight demonstrated that she was exposed to imminent harm and required to maintain jail security. In fact, her personnel records (Exhibit B) contain a written commendation dated March 16, 2011 for assisting a senior deputy to control and restrain an inmate who exuberated erratic behavior and repeatedly struck his head against a glass window and a floor. the applicant testified at trial that on one occasion, she was alone and had to take corrective action against an unruly inmate by telling him to face the wall so she could handcuff him. Though the applicant is not a sworn peace officer, her job duties constitute active law enforcement, and her exposure to danger from working closely with inmates places her within the scope of the statutory framework intended to protect such safety personnel. Therefore, the applicant should be entitled to the heart presumption under Labor Code Section 3212.

  The applicant's job duties as a custody assistant constitute active law enforcement, entitling her to the heart presumption under Labor Code Section 3212.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14292521 · 2024-05-20 · San Diego District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5IV. DR. WACHS' OPINION REGARDING INJURY AOE/COE IS SUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE

  Dr. Wachs' opinion is supported by the entire medical record, trial testimony, and proper legal standards on aggravation of pre-existing conditions; the WCJ found applicant's testimony credible and Dr. Wachs' opinion substantial medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10385820 · 2024-01-02 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.10In summary, we concur with the WCJ's analysis that section 4605 is not relevant to the issue of the submission of the October 6, 2021 report of Dr. Munday, obtained by defendant, to the QME. We conclude however that the issues that must be addressed herein are whether the reporting of Dr. Munday is properly considered a comprehensive medical legal report, whether the report was obtained in compliance with section 4060 and 4062.2, and whether applicant has waived his objection to the submission of the October 6, 2021 report of Dr. Munday to the QME. Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the October 10, 2023 F&O, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ. Any aggrieved person may thereafter seek reconsideration.

  The WCJ's order to exclude the October 6, 2021 report of Dr. Munday from submission to the QME was rescinded because the issues of whether the report is a comprehensive medical legal report, compliance with sections 4060 and 4062.2, and waiver of objection by applicant must be further addressed at trial level.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ3482353 · 2022-05-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Our determination that the applicant's condition, caused by his industrial injury, became permanent and stationary as of September 10, 2012, was based on QME Dr. Marusak's opinion that the psychiatric condition had become permanent and stationary on October 7, 2010, and AME Dr. Hirsch's opinion that the renal insufficiency condition and the hypertension condition had reached permanent and stationary status as of September 10, 2012. Our March 2, 2022 Opinion is consistent with the case law cited above as applied to the facts of this case.

  The condition became permanent and stationary as of September 10, 2012, based on substantial evidence from QME Dr. Marusak and AME Dr. Hirsch.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ3482353 · 2022-03-02 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Marlene the applicant (applicant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 23, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his psyche, renal system, and in the form of chronic hypertension, and that the injury caused 73% permanent disability, entitling the applicant to be paid permanent disability indemnity for the period from September 17, 2017, through January 17, 2019.

  The Appeals Board found substantial evidence from AME Dr. Hirsch and QME Dr. Marusak that the applicant's condition was permanent and stationary as of September 10, 2012, and that the injury caused 95% permanent disability, with no overlap in impairments justifying additive rating rather than combined values chart.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11175014 · 2022-01-24 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3We agree with Dr. Auerbach and the WCJ that Dr. DeSantis found that applicant had an industrial condition in his feet, and that Dr. Auerbach's analysis thus constitutes substantial evidence of industrial back injury and disability. Dr. DeSantis wrote in his report, "with reasonable medical probability, that this patient's right foot pain is a result of both a local foot strain, or plantar fasciitis, and also a component of radiculopathy." (April 6, 2019 report at pp. 19-20.) Dr. DeSantis never contradicted this initial opinion. At his deposition he expressly stated that he was unable to state with "reasonable medical probability" that there was no plantar fasciitis. (October 28, 2019 deposition at p. 24) Only when asked by the defense attorney whether there was "certainty" that

  Substantial evidence from QME Dr. DeSantis and Dr. Auerbach supported the finding of industrial injury to feet and back, with causation linked through altered gait and plantar fasciitis.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10385820 · 2022-01-21 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4When a party fails to exercise the right to reassignment when first notified of the identity of the Judge assigned to conduct the trial or expedited hearing, the party may not exercise the right to reassignment when the same Judge is assigned for a subsequent trial or expedited hearing. This is true regardless of whether the first matter actually was heard or decided by the Judge.

  Defendant failed to timely exercise its right to automatic reassignment when first notified of the identity of the WCJ; subsequent request before a later hearing with the same judge was untimely.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8309831 · 2021-11-23 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8The medical reports in the trial record are contradictory and confusing. As explained above, the doctors' opinions are not based on adequate information, and they appear to be the result of the physicians' speculation, conjecture, or guess. Again, based on our review of the trial record, it is clear that the record does not contain substantial evidence upon which the issue of injury AOE/COE can be made.4

  The WCJ's findings on injury AOE/COE were not supported by substantial evidence due to inconsistent and speculative medical opinions; the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and remanded for further proceedings with a new medical-legal report.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10807065 · 2021-09-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3applicant (deceased), through the Law Offices of Fred Fong, who represents several of the applicant's dependents, has filed a timely, verified and properly served reconsideration petition. This petition asserts that the WCJ erred in determining that decedent the applicant's fatal accident due to a fall from a carport roof was not attributable to the defendant employer's serious and willful misconduct within the meaning of Labor Code section 4453. Petitioner makes this contention on the following grounds:

  The petitioners failed to prove that the employer or a designated representative had knowledge of or recklessly disregarded safety order violations causing the applicant's death, as required by Labor Code section 4453.1. The evidence showed the applicant had autonomy over the unsafe acts and the employer had safety programs in place. The OSHA fines and settlement did not establish employer misconduct under the statute.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• ENGLAND, PONTICELLO & ST. CLAIR
• ENGLAND PONTICELLO & ST. CLAIR
• England, Ponticello & St. Clair
• ENGLAND PONTICELLO
• LAW OFFICES OF ENGLAND, PONTICELLO & ST. CLAIR
• England Ponticello & St. Clair
• ENGLAND PONTICELLO LAW FIRM

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.