KJT Law Group

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Jurisdiction / venue2
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR2
• Permanent disability rating1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 5
• Anaheim 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.

• 4 for the applicant
• 3 for the defense

Counted over 7 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.

• ADJ19294102 · 2026-07-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) of April 13, 2026, wherein the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while working as a handyman on March 14, 2024, was an employee of defendant and that the claim was untimely denied and therefore the claim was compensable. Defendant contends that the Finding that the presumption of compensability applies is in excess of the WCJ’s powers and the Finding that applicant was an employee of Mech 23 is not justified by the evidence. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration solely to amend the Findings to find that applicant sustained industrial injury to the eye (Finding of Fact 1) and otherwise affirm the decision.

  The WCAB found that applicant was an employee of defendant, not an independent contractor, based on control, insurance coverage, and the ABC test, and that the presumption of compensability applied because the denial was untimely.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17812320 · 2024-04-08 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, except as noted below, and the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, amend the WCJ's decision in order to properly note the jurisdictional findings in Finding of Fact number 1, including injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine and left shoulder. We otherwise affirm the January 19, 2024 Findings and Award. Pursuant to our authority, we accept defendant's supplemental pleading. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.)

  The Board found the claim was not barred by the post-termination defense because defendant failed to prove applicant had disability and knowledge of industrial cause prior to layoff, and amended Findings of Fact to include injury to cervical spine and left shoulder.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11380052 · 2022-07-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on May 4, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as a scheduling clerk on June 1, 2018, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head, neck, and upper back, and claims to have sustained injury to the brain, eyes, right shoulder, psyche, and in the form of nausea, headaches and insomnia; (2) the parties stipulated that applicant's primary treating physician (PTP) is Jacobo Chodakiewitz, M.D; (3) the WCJ has jurisdiction to address the PTP's request for treatment in the form of an outpatient rehabilitation program for balance and pain management because the utilization review (UR) determination denying the request was untimely; and (4) there is substantial evidence to support the request for the outpatient rehabilitation program in order to cure or relieve the effects of applicant's industrial injury.

  The WCJ correctly found the utilization review determination untimely due to defendant's attorney's delay in submitting the request for authorization to the claims administrator, and substantial medical evidence supports the necessity of the requested outpatient rehabilitation program.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10267198 · 2021-09-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2FACTUAL BACKGROUND Applicant claims he sustained injury to various body parts during the cumulative period from January 11, 2015 to January 11, 2016, while employed by the defendant as a warehouse worker. Saeed Nick, M.D., is applicant's primary treating physician. The parties proceeded to Expedited Trial on June 16, 2021. According to the Minutes of Hearing, the stipulations, as relevant herein, were that applicant sustained injury to various body parts during the cumulative period from January 11, 2015 to January 11, 2016 while employed by the defendant as a warehouse worker, and Saeed Nick, M.D., is applicant's primary treating physician. The issues, as relevant herein, were attorney fees, the need for 24-hour home healthcare services, timeliness of utilization review, and applicant's request for a home healthcare services assessment. Applicant claims defendant did not timely issue utilization review of Dr. Nick's February 14, 2020 RFA for 24-hour home healthcare services.

  The WCJ found the utilization review of Dr. Nick's February 14, 2020 RFA was untimely, which was not disputed by defendant, making it a final order and a threshold jurisdictional issue.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12031213 · 2021-06-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 10, 2020. By the F&O, the WCJ found that "[a]pplicant's request for referral to a pain management specialist constituted a request for care under [Administrative Director (AD) Rule] 9767.5(g)." The WCJ also found that applicant failed to select a physician from the list of three physicians provided by the medical access assistant (MAA). Applicant's petition to allow treatment outside the medical provider network (MPN) was ordered denied.

  Applicant failed to prove that defendant's MPN did not meet access standards or that the MAA failed to schedule an appointment within required timeframes, and did not select a physician from the MPN list.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17608786 · 2026-08-03 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative removal, of the Findings and Order; Order Re: Admission of Documentary Evidence (F&O) of April 27, 2026, wherein the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ), in relevant part, denied the petition for consolidation of April 24, 2024, and the amended position for consolidation of October 29, 2024. Defendant contends that the cases involve the same applicant’s attorneys and that denying consolidation will cause significant prejudice and irreparable harm by resulting in numerous separate hearings and trials on the same factual, procedural, discovery, and medical-legal issues that would result in a fragmented evidentiary record and inconsistent opinions by various WCJs. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration/ Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition.

  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.

• KJT LAW GROUP
• KJT Law Group
• KJT Law Group, LLC
• KJT Law Group, LLP
• KJT LAW

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.