Espinoza Law Group

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Discrimination under Labor Code §132a1
• Psyche AOE/COE1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 2
• Pomona 2
• 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.

• 3 for the applicant
• 2 for the defense

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ15467286 · 2024-03-01 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 11, 2023 (decision), wherein the WCJ found that, on October 19, 2021, applicant "sustained injury to his right ankle while performing his job duties, and was not acting outside the scope of his job duties."

  The WCAB found that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment despite conflicting testimony and credibility issues, as the injury occurred while performing job duties with a pallet jack, and defendant failed to prove the injury was due to horseplay or outside employment scope.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11114734 · 2023-06-06 · Pomona District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The Joint Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision dated March 13, 2023 found the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof of injury as alleged, both with regard to the specific as well as the cumulative trauma. The applicant was not found to be a credible witness as to the allegations made for both claimed injuries. Those findings were based on the entirety of the record submitted at time of trial with the conclusion the applicant shall take nothing.

  Applicant failed to sustain burden of proof of injury; WCJ credibility determinations were given great weight and supported by substantial evidence; defense witnesses' testimony was more credible; QME Dr. Lee's medical opinions were considered but did not overcome credibility findings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ15799667 · 2023-03-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her head while employed by defendant and that all other issues are deferred.

  Applicant was injured on employer's premises while waiting for her ride home after her shift ended, which is reasonably contemplated by employment and not a material deviation from duties, thus compensable under Labor Code section 3600(a).

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ9729654 · 2022-11-22 · Pomona District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations of the Petition and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the Findings of Fact, substitute findings that (1) applicant established his prima facie section 132a claim based upon the record showing that defendant terminated applicant on November 13, 2014 shortly after applicant made known his specific and cumulative injury claims, denied his specific injury claim on false grounds on December 5, 2014, and denied his cumulative injury claim on false grounds on May 4, 2015; and (2) defer the issues of whether defendant acted out of business necessity, and, as appropriate, whether defendant's stated business reasons were pretextual; and we will return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  Applicant established a prima facie claim by showing termination shortly after injury claims and false denial of claims; issues of business necessity and pretext deferred for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16489247 · 2026-01-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 20, 2025.

  The Appeals Board concluded the Petition for Reconsideration was premature because the WCJ had not created a complete record with evidence and testimony for review, thus the matter was returned to the WCJ 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. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• ESPINOZA LAW GROUP
• Espinoza Law Group

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.