Ford & Wallach

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Permanent disability rating2
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 5

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
• 1 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

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.

• ADJ20546432 · 2026-08-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5First, Defendant contends that Applicant is not entitled to temporary total disability benefits after Applicant retired having submitted his paperwork for retirement in February of 2025 with apparently an effective retirement date of March 25, 2025. Defendant correctly references the controlling case regarding entitlement to temporary total disability after retirement which is Gonzalez v. WCAB (1998) 63 CCC 1477, which provides that to determine whether an employee is entitled to temporary total disability following retirement, the employer must assess whether the employee is retired from the labor market in total or just from the occupation held at the time of the injury and whether the decision to retire was truly voluntary or was the decision to retire related to the industrial injury. Applicant credibly testified that he did not want to retire at the time he did and only did so because he was physically unable to work. Defendant failed to present any testimony or evidence that the

  Applicant credibly testified that retirement was not voluntary but due to physical inability to work, and no evidence contradicted this; thus, Applicant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits after retirement.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10247229 · 2022-09-13 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5As noted above, in his reports. Dr. Angerman discussed apportionment in the context of "the subtraction method." He concluded that if the subtraction method (i.e. the section 4664(b) presumption) was not applicable, then, "... [I]n all medical probability, 80% of the patient's left ankle disability/impairment would be attributable to her prior stipulated injuries." (Joint Exh. AA, p. 42.) Dr. Angerman did not describe the nature of the pre-existing condition. Nor did he explain how and why the prior injuries were causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, or how and why the prior injuries were responsible for 80% of applicant's left ankle disability. Therefore, his opinions do not comply with the requirements of the applicable case law and they do not constitute substantial evidence as to the issue of apportionment. (Acme Steel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Borman), supra; Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra.)

  Dr. Angerman's apportionment opinion was not substantial evidence because it lacked explanation of the nature and causation of the pre-existing condition; the record lacked substantial evidence for final determination; the case was remanded for further development and supplemental report from Dr. Angerman.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9254033 · 2022-07-08 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3There were multiple issues submitted for decision but the most controversial was whether the judge would find all or part of the psychiatric impairment compensable as a direct injury arising from the event on 6/3/13, or alternatively compensable under the violent act exception of Labor Code 4660.1. The judge ultimately ruled in Applicant's favor and determined the psychiatric injury was fully compensable leading to a combined permanent disability Award of 89%.

  The judge found the psychiatric injury fully compensable under the violent act exception of Labor Code 4660.1(c) based on credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from Dr. Levander diagnosing PTSD from a direct injury and traumatic event.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8299055 · 2022-06-08 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Joint Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 21, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that in case number ADJ8299055 applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, right shoulder, bilateral wrists, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, and in the form of hypertension, and sleep disorder; that the injury caused 80% permanent disability; and that 85% of the lumbar and cervical spine permanent disability was the result of the industrial injury.1

  The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to multiple body parts and conditions arising out of and in the course of employment, supported by substantial evidence including medical reports and applicant's credible testimony.

  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.

• FORD & WALLACH
• LAW OFFICES OF FORD & WALLACH
• FORD AND WALLACH

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.