Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 61
• San Francisco 26
• Sacramento 10
• Fresno 9
• Lodi 9
• Van Nuys 9
• Los Angeles 8
• Redding 8
• Marina del Rey 7
• San Diego 7
• Santa Ana 7
• San Jose 6

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.

• 84 for the applicant
• 78 for the defense
• 30 returned for more record

Counted over 179 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.

• ADJ10656647 · 2026-09-14 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the Joint Findings of Fact, Awards, and Order issued on November 23, 2022 is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor: JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At all relevant times herein, applicant, born _______, was employed as a groundskeeper (Occupational Group 491) in Colma, California, by defendant HILLS OF ETERNITY/HOME OF PEACE MANAGEMENT GROUP. 2. The defendant employer was insured against compensation liability by defendant AMERICAN FAMILY HOME INSURANCE COMPANY during the calendar year 2014 and by defendant INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST during the calendar year 2015. 3. At all relevant times herein, applicant’s pre-injury earnings were sufficient to entitle him to the maximum statutory permanent partial indemnity weekly rate. 4. In WCAB Case No. ADJ10656667, on April 12, 2015, applicant sustained injury, arising out of and occurring in the course of the employment identified in Finding of Fact No. 1, to his back. 5. In WCAB Case No.

  The Appeals Board found that applicant sustained cumulative injury to his back with the last date of injurious exposure on April 27, 2016, and the date of injury under section 5412 was February 3, 2020, based on uncontroverted AME medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ13935939 · 2026-08-21 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Vega and the MSC, and there is no indication defendant made any efforts to secure rebuttal evidence during that time. Further, to the extent that defendant asserts that the existing record is incomplete, we agree with the following statements made by the WCJ in her Report: Defendant’s contention that the record was incomplete is disingenuous. The decision considered the substantial medical evidence, which was based on reasonable medical probability, of the two Agreed Medical Evaluators, two Panel Qualified Medical Evaluators, and a Primary Treating Physician. In total there were 42 medical reports/depositions. In addition, there was a vocational rehabilitation expert report and credible testimony from Applicant, which included a full cross examination performed by Defendant. The fact that Defendant failed to exercise due diligence and procure rebuttal evidence does not make the record incomplete or require development of the record for rebuttal, particularly when Defendant had almost 2 years to obtain rebuttal evidence and failed to do so.

  Defendant failed to exercise due diligence to obtain a defense vocational evaluation prior to the Mandatory Settlement Conference, and the record was found complete with substantial medical and vocational evidence supporting applicant's permanent and total disability.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11672907 · 2026-08-06 · Salinas District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.126. All other issues, including injury to the psyche, as well as whether applicant has sustained new and further disability thereby establishing a right to reopen her case, are deferred.

  The WCAB deferred the issues of injury AOE/COE to psyche and new and further disability to reopen the case for further development.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ1680248 · 2026-08-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeContribution / subrogationmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1324. The Arbitrator found, based on the medical report of the Agreed Medical Evaluator, the value of future medical treatment, the MSA and approval by CMS and the fact the AME found applicant's rheumatoid arthritis to various body parts was aggravated by his employment at California Pizza Kitchen and applicant's fibromyalgia was aggravated by his employment at California Pizza Kitchen, the Arbitrator finds the amount of the settlement is reasonable. 25. The Arbitrator found that American Home Assurance Company did not fail to file a timely Petition for Contribution against Hartford because Hartford had no liability for the second different continuous trauma injury. 26. The Arbitrator, based on the findings above, found that Zurich American Insurance Company is responsible for 29% of the amount of the Compromise and Release Agreement and 29% of the Stipulated Award of temporary disability. 27. The Arbitrator found that Zurich American Insurance Company is entitled to a credit for the sums they paid to the applicant in an amount to be adjusted between the parties with the Arbitrator retaining jurisdiction in case of a dispute. That credit is limited by the fact they are responsible for 29% of that amount paid and, therefore, the credit is 71% of the amount that they paid. 28.

  Zurich American Insurance Company was found responsible for 29% of the Compromise and Release Agreement and the Stipulated Award of temporary disability based on insurance coverage periods and injury periods.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ20337002 · 2026-07-21 · Sacramento District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award, and Order (FA&O) issued on May 18, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the FA&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found that on December 19, 2024, applicant sustained an injury arising out of and occurring during the course of employment to the low back, right hand and left hand; applicant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from December 19, 2024, through September 14, 2025; and that applicant was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits after September 15, 2025. Applicant alleges that the WCJ found applicant’s testimony credible and defendant employer did not establish that modified duty was actually offered to applicant. She contends that the WCJ relied on an incorrect premise that she failed to adequately respond to employer communications, and that defendant did not meet its burden to show job abandonment or termination for cause so that she is entitled to temporary disability benefits after September 15, 2025. We received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied.

  The Appeals Board found that defendant did not meet its burden to prove a bona fide offer of modified work and that applicant was not terminated for cause unrelated to the industrial injury; therefore, applicant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from December 19, 2024 to January 6, 2026, with the issue of benefits thereafter deferred.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19531062 · 2026-06-08 · Sacramento District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6as defendant failed to check off the box next to the language, we agree with the WCJ that defendant failed to meet its burden of proof as to the application of the statute of limitations. By checking off the boxes of some language but not others, applicant was not properly and clearly made aware of how to obtain an evaluation by a qualified medical evaluator (QME) as required by AD Rule 9812 and as a result, the statute of limitations was tolled.

  Defendant failed to comply with the required notice language under AD Rule 9812(e)(3)(A)(2), resulting in tolling of the statute of limitations and estoppel from raising the defense.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14744840 · 2026-06-04 · San Francisco District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.14This suggests that applicant may also establish that he had preexisting permanent disability resulting from coronary artery disease. However, the medical record regarding whether he had such a preexisting permanent disability is unclear. Specifically, although Dr. Schmitz opined that applicant's subsequent injury in the form of hypertension resulted in permanent disability of 25%, he was unable to testify as to what impairment, if any, applicant had in 2014 after his heart stent placement surgery and temporary total disability. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 6-12.)

  The medical record was unclear and required further development to determine preexisting coronary heart disease permanent disability.

  Official decision · page 14 →
• ADJ18206391 · 2026-05-04 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.15Here, PQME Dr. McGahan's expert medical opinions are based on inadequate medical history and an incorrect legal theory and therefore are not substantial.

  PQME Dr. McGahan's opinions were not substantial evidence due to inadequate medical history and incorrect legal theory; record requires further development.

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ10300370 · 2026-04-27 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) In accordance with that mandate, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the record and decision on the issue of industrial injury to the neck. We believe that this case would be best served by the appointment of an independent medical evaluator pursuant to Labor Code section 5701, and thus the WCJ should issue an order for the appointment of a Labor Code section 5701 doctor upon return of this case. Since any industrial neck injury may

  The record was found insufficient and the case was remanded for further development including appointment of an independent medical evaluator to determine industrial injury to the neck.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15918599 · 2026-04-07 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Doctor Fishman also stated his opinion that applicant's cancer was a "insidious, progressive disease" warranting the extension of the Board's jurisdiction beyond the 5-year statute of limitations set forth in Labor Code § 5410 pursuant to General Foundry Service v. WCAB (Jackson), (1986) 42 C3d 331. He states:

  Medical evidence showed applicant's kidney cancer is a progressive, insidious disease with potential for recurrence, justifying extension of jurisdiction beyond the 5-year statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12061992 · 2026-03-25 · San Francisco District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, PQME Dr. Finkelberg identified applicant's underlying congenital pars defects, a condition creating a structural weakness in the vertebrae, which concentrates mechanical stress during normal or repetitive spinal motion. This predisposition can lead to stress fractures of the pars, or spondylolysis, and, over time, allow forward slippage of the vertebra, or spondylolisthesis, and progressive degenerative changes. (AMA Guides, Table 15-3, p. 384.) Although he diagnosed a fracture related to the pars defects, PQME Dr. Finkelberg did not provide the detailed causation analysis required to link it to specific nonindustrial permanent disability. Instead, he concluded that the fracture required a "more serious injury" than pushing chairs or tables, yet offered no clinical evidence supporting his assumption that the disabling symptoms otherwise arose from repetitive, naturally occurring motions.

  The Board found that the PQME's apportionment opinion lacked substantial medical foundation and did not comply with the required detailed causation analysis, thus defendant failed to meet its burden of proof on apportionment.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13081167 · 2026-01-16 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7In contrast to the issue of whether multiple periods of employment may have caused decedent's injury, as implicated by sections 3212.1 and 5500.5 discussed above, if there is one cumulative injury, as was stipulated here, then there can be only one section 5412 date of injury. In his November 2, 2018 report, Dr. Wiseman confirmed that December 5, 2017 was the first date upon which a diagnosis of industrially related cancer was reported and known to decedent. (Exhibit B, p. 31.) Accordingly, the WCJ found December 5, 2017 to be the date of injury for section 5412 purposes. Defendant provides no relevant evidence to contradict this finding, and we find no basis upon which to disturb it. As such, we agree with the WCJ's finding of December 5, 2017 as the date of injury under section 5412.

  The WCJ's finding of December 5, 2017 as the injury date under section 5412 is supported by Dr. Wiseman's medical opinion and the parties' stipulations; liability under section 5500.5 is deferred and related to the period of employment exposure.

  Official decision · page 7 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 23.

• LAUGHLIN, FALBO, LEVY & MORESI
• Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi
• LAUGHLIN FALBO LEVY & MORESI
• Laughlin Falbo Levy & Moresi
• LAUGHLIN, FALBO, LEVY & MORESI, LLP
• LAUGHLIN FALBO
• Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi, LLP
• LAUGHLIN, FALBO LEVY & MORESI, LLP
• LAUGHLIN, FALBO, LEVY & MORESI LLP
• LAUGHLIN FALBO LEVY & MORESI, LLP
• Laughlin Falbo
• LAUGHLIN, FALBO, LEVY AND MORESI 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.