Greenup, Hartston & Rosenfeld

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 8
• Los Angeles 3
• Anaheim 1
• Long Beach 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Riverside 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.

• 7 for the applicant
• 7 for the defense
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 15 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.

• ADJ10974991 · 2025-02-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.41. the applicant, born [], while employed during the period from 9/9/09 through 10/21/16, as an eligibility worker, occupational group number 111, at Los Angeles, California, by the County of Los Angeles, Department of Social Services, sustain[ed] injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her neck, bilateral hands and wrists, lungs/asthma and psyche, and did not sustain injury to her bilateral shoulders, bilateral upper extremities (with the exception of bilateral hands and wrists), right hip, lumbar spine, or in the form of IBS, GERD, or hypertension. The record requires further development relating to applicant's claim of injury in the form of sleep.

  The WCJ found injury to neck, bilateral hands and wrists, lungs/asthma, and psyche, but no injury to bilateral shoulders, upper extremities (except hands and wrists), right hip, lumbar spine, IBS, GERD, or hypertension, based on medical reports and testimony; exclusion of Dr. Tomaszewski's report was proper due to nondisclosure.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10114208 · 2024-11-07 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5reporting of the AME in this case did not constitute substantial evidence, was inconsistent, based

  The WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain injury to certain body parts was challenged; the Appeals Board found the AME's medical reporting did not constitute substantial evidence and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13080332 · 2024-02-08 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.5It appears that Dr. Mirzaians is awaiting additional diagnostics and a re-evaluation of applicant before he addresses the issues of permanent disability and apportionment. However, it also must be noted that in his November 1, 2021 supplemental report Dr. Mirzaians discussed various inconsistencies in the record as to whether applicant sustained injury to his right shoulder, left shoulder, or both shoulders. (Joint Exh. 4, pp. 6 § 7.) To be substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be based on pertinent facts, on an adequate examination and on an accurate history. (Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra.) The inconsistencies in the medical record, as discussed by Dr. Mirzaians, render his earlier opinions not substantial evidence as to applicant's shoulder injury. Review of the record also indicates that Dr. Mirzaians did not review any medical records pertaining to, and did not provide an opinion as to, the claimed "fingers" injury.4 Therefore, the record does not contain substantial evidence regarding that issue.

  Inconsistencies in the medical record and lack of substantial evidence regarding shoulder and fingers injuries; issues deferred for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11080016 · 2023-07-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 9, 2023 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's injuries were not caused by the serious and willful misconduct of her employer.

  The evidence did not show that the employer or its representatives had actual knowledge of a safety order violation or that the conditions posed a probable risk of serious injury with reckless disregard. The classroom size and occupancy were within contractual limits, and the cited regulations were construction codes, not safety orders. The employer's conduct did not rise to the level of serious and willful misconduct.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11738998 · 2022-04-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant ADP Total Source FLXVI, Inc., dba Three D Plastics, insured by American Home Assurance Company, administered by Helmsman Management Services, Inc. (Three D Plastics) seeks reconsideration of the May 11, 2021 Amended Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a machinist from May 1, 2016 to January 13, 2019, sustained industrial injury to the wrists, back and neck, with all other body parts deferred. Applicant had concurrent employment during the alleged cumulative trauma with Vallarta Supermarkets (Vallarta) and with Three D Plastics. The WCJ found that the reporting of Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Yuri Falkinstein, M.D. constituted substantial medical evidence, and relying thereon, determined that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE), attributable solely to her employment with Three D Plastics.

  The WCAB found substantial medical evidence in the AME Dr. Falkinstein's reports and deposition supporting that the applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment with Three D Plastics, rejecting the alternative causation scenario and the QME Dr. Guellich's report as not substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8698732 · 2022-04-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2As to the statute of limitations claims raised by both landlord Zee Shore and tenant/petitioner S & P, I determined that the statute of limitations defense was valid as to landlord Zee Shore due to their apparent lack of knowledge of the injury before an application was filed against them. By contrast, I found the same statute of limitations defense unmeritorious as to tenant S & P based on S & P's contemporaneous knowledge the accident and a consequent breach of S & P's "Reynolds" duty to apprise the applicant of his workers compensation rights against S & P. (Reynolds v. WCAB, 39 CCC 768.)

  The WCJ found the statute of limitations defense valid as to landlord Zee Shore due to lack of knowledge but invalid as to tenant S & P due to contemporaneous knowledge and breach of duty to notify applicant of rights, which the panel upheld.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12435218 · 2021-12-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative removal, regarding of the October 12, 2020 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that the selection of Steven Meier, M.D., as panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) from panel number 7354140 is valid.

  The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and that reconsideration was an adequate remedy, thus affirming the WCJ's decision that the PQME selection was valid despite the strike dispute and replacement request.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10800715 · 2025-12-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the order under review was interlocutory and not final, thus the petition was improper as it did not address a substantive right or threshold issue.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10974991 · 2025-11-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Partial Findings of Fact, Award and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 26, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

  The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the issues, but the parties settled by compromise and release, leading to rescission of the prior decision and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16063526 · 2025-04-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on July 13, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, we vacate our order granting reconsideration and dismiss the Petition.

  Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner while matter was pending, leading to dismissal of the Petition and vacating of the order granting reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9773950 · 2024-09-06 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In this case, the WCA issued the Findings and Award on November 23, 2020, and defendant filed a timely petition on December 17, 2020. However, the first notice to the Appeals Board of the Petition was on May 19, 2021. Due to this lack of notice, the Appeals Board failed to act on the petition within 60 days, through no fault of the parties. Therefore, considering that defendant filed a timely petition and that the Appeals Board's failure to act on that petition was in error, we find that our time to act on defendant's petition was equitably tolled until 60 days after May 19, 2021.

  The Appeals Board failed to act on the timely filed petition within 60 days due to lack of notice, which deprived the defendant of due process; the Board equitably tolled the time to act until 60 days after notice was received and granted reconsideration to study the issues further.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11154169 · 2024-03-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and Disqualification and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition for Removal and Disqualification.

  The petition failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm for removal and did not set forth sufficient facts for disqualification under the cited legal standards.

  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.

• GREENUP, HARTSTON & ROSENFELD, LLP
• GREENUP, HARTSTON & ROSENFELD
• Greenup, Hartston & Rosenfeld
• Greenup, Hartston & Rosenfeld, LLP
• GREENUP HARTSTON & ROSENFELD, LLP
• GREENUP HARTSTON & ROSENFELD
• Greenup Hartston & Rosenfeld
• GREENUP, HARTSTON& ROSENFELD

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.