California WCABLaw firm

Floyd Skeran Manukian Langevin

Floyd Skeran Manukian Langevin is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2) and Earnings / average weekly earnings (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Van Nuys.

Decisions: 6
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 4

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 2
Van Nuys 2
Sacramento 1
San Bernadino 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.

6 for the applicant
1 for the defense

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ18492736 · 2025-09-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.92007 to November 9, 2023, as a cashier, occupational group number: 214, at Los Angeles, California by Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., insured by Safety National Casualty Corporation, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her left hand. 2. The issue of injury to other body parts is deferred pending further development of the record.
The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting injury to the left hand only, deferring other body parts due to incomplete medical evidence and the need for further development of the record.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ1631280 · 2025-09-02 · San Bernadino District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9and there was no summary of the evidence received and relied upon, there is no evidence upon which we could base a decision. Without an evidentiary record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, as required. (Hamilton, supra, at p. 476; Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb, supra, 11 Cal.3d at 280-281.) Therefore, we return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to conduct an evidentiary hearing and create a record upon which a decision can be made.
The WCJ took the matter off calendar without admitting evidence or hearing testimony, but issued findings and orders without an evidentiary record, violating due process; therefore, the matter was returned to trial level for evidentiary hearing and new decision.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ9823240 · 2025-08-18 · Oakland District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7(3) If the earnings are at an irregular rate, such as piecework, or on a commission basis, or are specified to be by week, month, or other period, then the average weekly earnings mentioned in subdivision (a) shall be taken as the actual weekly earnings averaged for this period of time, not exceeding one year, as may conveniently be taken to determine an average weekly rate of pay. (4) Where the employment is for less than 30 hours per week, or where for any reason the foregoing methods of arriving at the average weekly earnings cannot reasonably and fairly be applied, the average weekly earnings shall be taken at 100 percent of the sum which reasonably represents the average weekly earning capacity of the injured employee at the time of his or her injury, due consideration being given to his or her actual earnings from all sources and employments. Defendant's proffered Defendant's Exhibit B, Social Security Earnings Records, but provided no corresponding testimony or evidence to show how much of the prior year applicant had actually worked.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ13448644 · 2022-05-31 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Applicant's testimony matches the mechanism of injury in Dr. Wolfson's report as well as in Dr. Nkadi's reporting. Although there are other mechanisms of injury noted in other reports this does not completely undermine applicant's credibility. Based upon Dr. Wolfsons reporting and applicant's testimony it is found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her left shoulder on July 12, 2020.
The WCJ found the applicant's testimony credible and relied on the PQME Dr. Wolfson's report, which matched the applicant's injury mechanism, to find an industrial injury despite inconsistent histories in other reports.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ9064869 · 2022-01-31 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Defendants are correct that California Labor Code Section 4628 requires that a physician take a complete history, review and summarize medical records, and compose and draft the conclusions of any admissible report. It is also true that any decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board must be based on substantial medical evidence, and that substantial medical evidence must include a correct and germane history (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604). As defendants have pointed out, Dr. Burstein indicated in two narrative reports dated January 26, 2015 and May 8, 2015 that he wanted to review records of Dr. Chan and Antelope Valley Hospital, and the request was made with respect to the issues of diabetes and hypertension.
The Board found Dr. Burstein's reports to be substantial medical evidence despite defendants' claim of false history and lack of requested records, and ordered payment to lien claimant with amended treatment amount based on fee schedule.
Official decision · page 6 →

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.

Floyd Skeran Manukian Langevin
Floyd Skeran Manukian Langevin, 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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Floyd Skeran Manukian Langevin

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

1 for the defense

Decisions

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

ADJ18492736 · 2025-09-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.92007 to November 9, 2023, as a cashier, occupational group number: 214, at Los Angeles, California by Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., insured by Safety National Casualty Corporation, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her left hand. 2. The issue of injury to other body parts is deferred pending further development of the record.

The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting injury to the left hand only, deferring other body parts due to incomplete medical evidence and the need for further development of the record.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ1631280 · 2025-09-02 · San Bernadino District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9and there was no summary of the evidence received and relied upon, there is no evidence upon which we could base a decision. Without an evidentiary record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, as required. (Hamilton, supra, at p. 476; Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb, supra, 11 Cal.3d at 280-281.) Therefore, we return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to conduct an evidentiary hearing and create a record upon which a decision can be made.

The WCJ took the matter off calendar without admitting evidence or hearing testimony, but issued findings and orders without an evidentiary record, violating due process; therefore, the matter was returned to trial level for evidentiary hearing and new decision.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ9823240 · 2025-08-18 · Oakland District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7(3) If the earnings are at an irregular rate, such as piecework, or on a commission basis, or are specified to be by week, month, or other period, then the average weekly earnings mentioned in subdivision (a) shall be taken as the actual weekly earnings averaged for this period of time, not exceeding one year, as may conveniently be taken to determine an average weekly rate of pay. (4) Where the employment is for less than 30 hours per week, or where for any reason the foregoing methods of arriving at the average weekly earnings cannot reasonably and fairly be applied, the average weekly earnings shall be taken at 100 percent of the sum which reasonably represents the average weekly earning capacity of the injured employee at the time of his or her injury, due consideration being given to his or her actual earnings from all sources and employments. Defendant's proffered Defendant's Exhibit B, Social Security Earnings Records, but provided no corresponding testimony or evidence to show how much of the prior year applicant had actually worked.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ13448644 · 2022-05-31 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Applicant's testimony matches the mechanism of injury in Dr. Wolfson's report as well as in Dr. Nkadi's reporting. Although there are other mechanisms of injury noted in other reports this does not completely undermine applicant's credibility. Based upon Dr. Wolfsons reporting and applicant's testimony it is found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her left shoulder on July 12, 2020.

The WCJ found the applicant's testimony credible and relied on the PQME Dr. Wolfson's report, which matched the applicant's injury mechanism, to find an industrial injury despite inconsistent histories in other reports.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ9064869 · 2022-01-31 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Defendants are correct that California Labor Code Section 4628 requires that a physician take a complete history, review and summarize medical records, and compose and draft the conclusions of any admissible report. It is also true that any decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board must be based on substantial medical evidence, and that substantial medical evidence must include a correct and germane history (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604). As defendants have pointed out, Dr. Burstein indicated in two narrative reports dated January 26, 2015 and May 8, 2015 that he wanted to review records of Dr. Chan and Antelope Valley Hospital, and the request was made with respect to the issues of diabetes and hypertension.

The Board found Dr. Burstein's reports to be substantial medical evidence despite defendants' claim of false history and lack of requested records, and ordered payment to lien claimant with amended treatment amount based on fee schedule.

Official decision · page 6 →