California WCABLaw firm
Law Firm of Friedman & Bartoumian
Law Firm of Friedman & Bartoumian is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (3), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2) and Permanent total disability (2). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Anaheim.
- Decisions
- 13
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 5
- District offices
- 9
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 12 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.
- ADJ11235520 · 2026-06-22 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Defendant relies on a UR request for additional information dated June 6, 2022, to support application of the extended timeframe under section 4610(j)(2). However, the determinative question is not merely the date appearing on the document, but whether the request was actually and immediately communicated to the treating physician and the employee within the statutory timeframe.
The record did not establish whether defendant timely and properly communicated the June 6, 2022 request for additional information, creating an evidentiary gap preventing determination of timeliness of the June 10, 2022 UR denial. The case was remanded for further evidentiary development to resolve this issue.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ11130675 · 2025-06-05 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent total disabilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11A traumatic injury may lead to permanent mental incapacity in severe cases; however, a traumatic brain injury is not synonymous with having permanent mental incapacity. "Incapacity" is "the quality or state of being incapable; especially lack of physical or intellectual power or of natural or legal qualifications." ("Incapacity", Merriam-Webster Dictionary, online ed., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incapacity, last reviewed September 17, 2024 (emphasis added).) Here, no evidence exists to find that applicant is permanently mentally incapacitated. Applicant was able to coherently testify to the events of his case. The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible.4
No evidence applicant is permanently mentally incapacitated; WCJ's finding of permanent total disability under section 4662(a)(4) was in error and rescinded
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ5787628 · 2025-05-05 · San Bernadino District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10Here, the parties obtained a medical-legal evaluation from the orthopedic AME, Dr. Wood. But when Dr. Wood was asked under oath whether his final opinions accurately reflected applicant's condition orthopedically, he testified that they did but added that "a neurologist may add additional functional loss that I was missing." (Jt. Ex. Q, Deposition Transcript of David Wood, July 28, 2020, p. 18:9-23.)
The AME Dr. Wood testified that a neurologist may add additional functional loss that he was missing, establishing good cause for an additional neurology QME panel.
Official decision · page 10 → - ADJ4241704 · 2024-10-07 · Redding District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11the basis for their opinions. As such, we find their opinions to be substantial medical evidence. The WCJ references a Utilization Review by Genex, but as it is not medical report, it is not substantial medical evidence upon which we can rely. In light of the entire record, including the substantial medical evidence of Drs. Xeller, Sun, and Ching, applicant met his burden of showing that injuries to his cervical spine are a compensable consequence of his prior industrial injuries. As such, applicant is entitled medical care reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of injuries to his cervical spine.
Substantial medical evidence from Drs. Xeller, Sun, and Ching established that the cervical spine injury is a compensable consequence of prior industrial injuries, entitling applicant to further medical treatment.
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ11289849 · 2024-06-18 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.31. Applicant's Occupation: Warehouseman Date of Injury: CT: August 15, 2010 April 19, 2018 Parts of Body Injured: Head, shoulders, nervous system, psyche and neck (alleged). Identity of Petitioner: Lien Claimant Premier Psychological Services filed the petition. Timeliness: The petition was timely filed. Verification: The petition was verified.
The evidence showed Defendant had a validly established MPN at the time of injury and did not deny or neglect to provide medical care, despite a delay in scheduling treatment. The burden of proof for denial of care was not met by the Petitioner.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ10591850 · 2024-05-09 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a February 26, 2024 Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, low back, bilateral wrists (carpal tunnel syndrome), and bilateral shoulders. The WCJ found the current record insufficient with respect to whether applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to the nervous system/psyche, headaches, diabetes, and hypertension. The WCJ ordered parties to further develop the record and to meet and confer in an attempt to reach an agreement on Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs) to address injury AOE/COE as well "whole person impairment, permanent disability, and apportionment" where applicable. (F&A, p. 2.)
The WCJ found the record insufficient to determine injury AOE/COE to the nervous system/psyche, headaches, diabetes, and hypertension and ordered further development of the record. The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ's decision to deny reconsideration and require further development due to incomplete medical opinions.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ2648786 · 2024-01-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Pursuant to Labor Code section 5300,1 the WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the "recovery of compensation, or concerning any right or liability arising out of or incidental thereto" of injuries that "arise out of and in the course" of employment," and that "[c]ompensation includes medical treatment, temporary disability indemnity, permanent disability indemnity, SJDB vouchers, and death benefits... In other words, the WCAB maintains exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to the California Constitution and section 5300 to adjudicate workers' compensation disputes." (Dennis v. State of California (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 28 [2020 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 1] (Appeals Board en banc).) The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered. (Lab. Code, § 5803.) The Appeals Board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, for good cause. (Lab. Code, § 5803.)
The WCAB lacks authority to order disgorgement of funds by guardian ad litem and does not have jurisdiction over the alleged misappropriation issue.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ11934915 · 2022-03-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3The sole question in ADJ11934915 asked is who was the employer of the injured workers on the date of injury 09/28/2018. Another included question referenced Labor Code § 2750.5. Defense counsel for AMPCO asks, separately from this issue, as to:
The WCAB panel affirmed the WCJ's finding that AMPCO was the employer of the injured workers under Labor Code 2750.5, rejecting the adverse inference claims against CalMar and SCIF due to lack of evidence and failure to comply with subpoena issues.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ10131609 · 2021-03-12 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.5Dr. Richman's reporting on applicant's industrial impairments cannot be relied upon as substantial medical evidence in light of his subsequent consideration of the contemporaneous emergency room records of applicant's treatment for his industrial injury, which revealed that applicant denied he sustained an injury to his head, and which did not establish applicant sustained a loss of consciousness. While Dr. Richman determined that only his 10% WPI rating of applicant's traumatic head syndrome was no longer applicable, he has not provided an explanation for his findings with regard to applicant's symptoms which he had previously attributed directly to a posttraumatic head syndrome. Dr. Richman concluded that applicant still suffers from ratable industrial sequelae of anxiety, depression and headaches, and from lightheadedness associated with his anxiety, which he had attributed to a posttraumatic head syndrome.
The Board found the medical evidence supporting permanent total disability was not substantial due to the AME's revised opinion removing the head injury component and the need for further development of the record to clarify the cause of applicant's symptoms and disability.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ16161113 · 2025-10-21 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant filed two petitions for removal from various discovery orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The petitions for removal were dismissed as moot because the parties filed and approved a Compromise and Release, resolving the underlying issues.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14431336 · 2024-12-24 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, as discussed in the WCJ's report, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Thus, the Petition will be denied.
The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish grounds for disqualification under the cited statutes and rules.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ11934915 · 2021-06-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the minute order issued on December 9, 2020 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, leading to dismissal.
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.
- Law Firm of Friedman & Bartoumian
- LAW FIRM OF FRIEDMAN + BARTOUMIAN
- FRIEDMAN & BARTOUMIAN
- LAW OFFICES OF FRIEDMAN & BARTOUMIAN
- LAW FIRM OF FRIEDMAN AND BARTOUMIAN
- Law Firm of Friedman Bartoumian
- Friedman & Bartoumian
- FRIEDMAN BARTOUMIAN
- Friedman Bartoumian
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.
Also on this
Private workspace
Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.
Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.