Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 19
• Anaheim 10
• Los Angeles 6
• Marina del Rey 3
• Long Beach 2
• Oxnard 2
• Riverside 2
• Pomona 1
• San Bernardino 1
• Stockton 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.

• 23 for the defense
• 17 for the applicant
• 9 returned for more record

Counted over 46 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.

• ADJ9477566 · 2026-05-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the supplemental briefing, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, because we conclude that (1) section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply to the claim, but that (2) the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, a necessary factual predicate to application of those subdivisions.

  The Board concluded that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply, but the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, which is necessary to apply those subdivisions.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ1022470 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the decisions in ADJ3880940 and ADJ4230890, and substitute new decisions that find that CIGA and Desert have joint and several liability and order that Desert is to administer applicant's further medical treatment, and defer the issue of new and further disability in ADJ4230890. We make no other changes to any of the other decisions.

  The Board deferred the issue of new and further disability because the record was inadequate to determine whether the applicant sustained new and further disability and whether a petition to reopen was filed, and CIGA waived the issue by not raising it earlier.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ3301539 · 2025-12-12 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the Stipulations clearly state in Paragraph 4 that: "There is need for medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of said injury pursuant to the AME reports of Richard Siebold, M.D." This is a statement that applicant will require medical treatment based on the current opinion of Dr. Siebold; the stipulation does not state that all future medical treatment issues shall be decided by Dr. Siebold. In addition in Paragraph 8, stipulation 2 states that: "The parties stipulate to the findings of the AME Richard Siebold, MD." This appears to be more likely to be an agreement as to Dr. Siebold's opinion as to applicant's permanent disability, and not a statement that disputes regarding medical treatment would be submitted to Dr. Siebold in the future. Thus, based on the plain language of the Stipulations, we do not find that the parties meant to submit their disputes regarding medical treatment to Dr. Siebold.

  The plain language of the 2003 Stipulations did not show mutual agreement to submit future medical treatment disputes to Dr. Siebold, and there was no evidence to bypass the statutory utilization review and independent medical review processes.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13556390 · 2025-08-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.10IV. Accordingly, we grant defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether defendants are exempt from California jurisdiction under Labor Code § 3600.5(b) and related exemptions, deferring final decision pending further review.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ3776569 · 2025-05-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center (DTC) timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Joint Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 20, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

  The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the lien issues and approved the stipulation resolving the lien, rescinding the prior WCJ order.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3776569 · 2025-05-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center (DTC) timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Joint Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 20, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

  The Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues and approved the stipulation resolving the lien.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9336762 · 2025-03-17 · Anaheim District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9II. Section 4060(b) allows for a medical-legal evaluation by a treating physician and section 4620(a) defines medical legal expense as "any costs and expenses...for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim." Section 4064(a) provides that an employer is liable for the cost of any comprehensive medical evaluations authorized under section 4060. The regulations provide that the "primary treating physician shall render opinions on all medical issues necessary to determine the employee's eligibility for compensation..." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(d).) AD Rule 9793(h) states: (h) "Medical-legal expense" means any costs or expenses incurred by or on behalf of any party or parties, the administrative director, or the appeals board for X-rays, laboratory fees, other diagnostic tests, medical reports, medical records, medical testimony, and as needed, interpreter's fees, for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim. The cost of medical evaluations, diagnostic tests, and interpreters is not a medical-legal expense unless it is incidental to the production of a comprehensive medical-legal evaluation report, follow-up medical-legal evaluation report, or a supplemental medical-legal evaluation report and all of the following conditions exist:

  The Appeals Board found that a medical-legal evaluation performed by the employee's primary treating physician (PTP) is a medical-legal expense for which the employer is liable, even if there is an AME or PQME, and that RMS Medical Group's medical-legal services were reasonable and necessary.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ1556152 · 2025-02-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility Intercare for Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, in liquidation (CIGA) both seek reconsideration of the November 14, 2024 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that in ADJ1556152, in relevant part, applicant is entitled to 90 percent permanent disability after the application of apportionment pursuant to Labor Code1 sections 4663 and 4664.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review whether apportionment was properly applied and deferred final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ285288 · 2025-01-03 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, age 49, while employed on 2/29/2000, and during the period 4/15/1995 to 2/29/2000, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment as a soil technician in California with his general employer being GTG, Inc. dba Leighton & Associates, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was American Motorists Insurance, now identified as California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility, Tristar Risk Management, for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company in liquidation. 2. The applicant did not have dual or special employment with Koll Construction Company on February 29, 2000 nor during the period October 1999 to February 29, 2000.

  The evidence showed Koll did not exercise control over applicant's work, applicant was paid and supervised by GTG, Inc., and Koll's role was limited to scheduling and oversight without direct control, thus no dual or special employment existed.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ756255 · 2024-09-24 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3While the WCA issued the Report on December 22, 2021, filing of the arbitration file in EAMS was not completed as required by WCAB Rule 10995, as the record does not include all exhibits proffered, including, but not limited to, the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision of November 11, 2021 of the WCA for which both parties seek reconsideration.

  The record was incomplete, lacking necessary exhibits and an adequate description and organization of evidence, preventing meaningful review by the Board.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8097031 · 2024-08-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Applicant's attorney thereafter ordered subpoenas duces tecum for records, and lien claimant performed copy services in September and November 2013. At that time, it is clear that a contested claim existed, because the Application claiming injury and seeking benefits was filed by applicant on December 5, 2011 almost two years before, and the dates that the subpoena duces tecum were issued were well beyond the 14 day period for defendant to begin paying applicant temporary disability, to offer medical treatment, or to respond to applicant's claim. Thus, a "contested claim" existed prior to the lien claimant performing any copy services.

  The WCAB found that a contested claim existed at the time lien claimant provided services because the applicant's claim was filed well before the services and the defendant had not timely accepted or denied liability, indicating a contested claim existed.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10143466 · 2024-08-08 · San Bernardino District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings of Fact issued on July 15, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that on May 27, 2014, applicant, while employed by Insured Solutions/Fontana Logistics Center, insured by Lumbermans [sic] Underwriting Alliance, now in liquidation and administered by defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association ("CIGA"), sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine and right leg. The WCJ also found that applicant needs further medical treatment for this injury, including but not limited to the Utilization Review ("UR") determination that back surgery is medically necessary, and that there is no factual or legal basis for CIGA to deny authorization for surgery.

  The WCAB found substantial evidence including medical opinions of Dr. Osborne, Dr. Paquette, and Dr. Feiwell, as well as the Utilization Review certification, supporting that the applicant's need for back surgery is related to the May 27, 2014 injury and that the surgery is medically necessary.

  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.

• GUILFORD, SARVAS & CARBONARA
• GUILFORD SARVAS & CARBONARA
• GUILFORD SARVAS & CARBONARA LLP
• Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara
• GUILFORD SARVAS & CARBONARA, LLP
• Guilford, Sarvas & Carbonara
• GUILFORD, SARVAS & CARBONARA, LLP
• Law Offices of Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara
• GUILFORD, SARVAS & CARBONARA LLP
• Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara LLP
• GUILFORD, SARVAS AND CARBONARA

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.