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 59
• San Francisco 25
• Fresno 9
• Lodi 9
• Sacramento 9
• Van Nuys 9
• Redding 8
• Los Angeles 7
• 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.

• 79 for the applicant
• 75 for the defense
• 30 returned for more record

Counted over 172 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.

• 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 →
• ADJ18364465 · 2026-01-16 · Lodi District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Applicant was on modified duty, but he was told he was unable to work at all. His retirement was a function of his industrial injury, and not a result of any intention not to work. Further, in contrast to the evidentiary record in Sera, the present case establishes that applicant was medically unable to work, or look for work, immediately after his retirement. Dr. Walter, the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), indicated in his April 11, 2024 report that applicant was temporarily totally disabled (TTD) from July 14, 2023 forward, so medical expert opinion supports applicant's TTD status. Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration of the findings and award of temporary disability.

  Applicant's retirement was due to his industrial injury and not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market; medical evidence and applicant's credible testimony support entitlement to temporary disability benefits after retirement.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ268422 · 2026-01-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 10, 2025 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her back, shoulders, and psyche while employed on February 10, 2004 as a "nurse (RN)." The WCJ further found that an Findings and Award issued on July 29, 2021 finding the applicant 100% disabled; that the applicant's appeal of the IMR (Independent Medical Review) Final Determination is timely filed granting jurisdiction to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB); and that the applicant's appeal of the IMR Final Determination is denied in that the Determination is not based upon plainly erroneous facts. Based on these findings, the WCJ issued an order denying applicant's Appeal of the IMR Final Determination and ordering further development of the record.

  The WCJ found the IMR Final Determination was not plainly erroneous based on the evidence, but the WCAB granted reconsideration to further develop the record and review the merits due to incomplete evidence and the need for substantial evidence to support the decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15838301 · 2025-12-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (FF&O) issued on September 9, 2025 by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein, the WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his head, neck, and back, that there has not been a change of circumstances shown regarding the applicant's need for continued care at Casa Colina at this time, and ordered defendant to pay Casa Colina for applicant's ongoing medical care after July 24, 2024, in an amount to be adjusted by the parties, with jurisdiction reserved.

  The WCJ found no change in circumstances regarding the applicant's need for continued care, supported by Dr. Patterson's opinion, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14778693 · 2025-10-29 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6a. The length of delay caused by the QME's unavailability. b. The amount of prejudice caused by the delay in availability versus the amount of prejudice caused by restarting the QME process. c. What efforts, if any, have been made to remedy the QME's availability. d. Case specific factual reasons that justify replacing or keeping the current QME, including whether a party may have waived its objection. e. The Appeals Board's constitutional mandate to "accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) (Vazquez, supra, at p. 527.) Defendant first requested the re-evaluation by Dr, Campos on August 22, 2023 (Ex. A), which was after the February 2, 2023 change in regulations. It did so again on September 21, 2023, and September 28, 2023, before QME Campos provided the appointment date of February 4, 2024, on September 28, 2023. (Exs. B, C, E.) The re-evaluation was scheduled over 120 days from the initial request in violation of AD Rules 31.3(e) and 31.5(a)(2). Thus, the WCJ should consider whether there was good cause pursuant to Vazquez to replace the QME due to unavailability. Therefore, we rescind the F&O and return this matter to the WCJ for consideration of whether good exists to order a replacement QME panel.

  The Appeals Board found that the re-evaluation was scheduled over 120 days from the initial request, in violation of AD Rules 31.3(e) and 31.5(a)(2), and remanded for the WCJ to consider whether good cause exists to replace the QME due to unavailability, as required by Vazquez.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12075922 · 2025-09-12 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 13, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his left knee, right knee, lower back, and left hip resulting in an award of 69% permanent disability based on the medical reporting agreed medical evaluator (AME) Dr. Peter Mandell, M.D. The WCJ also found that defendant unreasonably delayed or refused payment of partial permanent and temporary disability indemnity compensation and issued two penalties for defendant's unreasonable delay of payment of compensation pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5814.

  The WCJ's finding of 69% permanent disability based on Dr. Mandell's AME reports was upheld as supported by substantial evidence, and penalties were affirmed for defendant's unreasonable delay in payment of temporary and permanent disability indemnity.

  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. 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
• LAUGHLIN, FALBO, LEVY & MORESI, LLP
• 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 & MORESI, L.L.P

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.