Law Office of Jodie P. Filkins

What they litigate

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

• Cumulative trauma1
• Discrimination under Labor Code §132a1

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 5
• Anaheim 1
• Marina del Rey 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.

• 6 for the defense
• 1 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

• ADJ10151267 · 2025-02-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 23, 2024 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein and as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her cervical and lumbar spine, left hand, head, ears and psyche and injury in the form of blackouts, while employed as an Associate Director of Transportation on May 18, 2015. The WCJ further found applicant is totally permanently disabled because of her injury on a psychiatric basis.

  The Appeals Board found the record was not properly developed with substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's finding of total permanent disability due to brain injury and psychiatric dysfunction, warranting reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14612291 · 2024-12-09 · Santa Ana District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Here, we concur with the WCJ that PQME Dr. Nicola's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence because it is based upon reasonable medical probability, pertinent facts, adequate examination and history, and sets forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Report, p. 4.) Contrary to defendant's argument, the fact that the medical record on which Dr. Nicola relied does not show that applicant reported back pain resulting from his increased work duties does not suggest that the reporting lacked adequate history.

  The WCAB found substantial medical evidence, including PQME Dr. Nicola's report and credible testimony, supporting that applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury to the lumbar spine through March 30, 2021.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ16001585 · 2025-06-05 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to an Order continuing the matter for trial issued by the trial workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 8, 2024. Applicant contends that the WCJ:

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the trial continuance order and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to the applicant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ6488980 · 2024-02-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2919928 · 2023-12-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petitions.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2919928 · 2023-03-09 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Flatiron West, Inc. (FWI) and defendant FCI Constructors (FCI) each individually seek reconsideration or removal of the order taking off calendar from the hearing on September 21, 2021. FWI contends that applicant failed to file and serve the Application for Increase in Compensation Due to Serious and Willful Misconduct of FCI Constructors (the "S&W Petition") within the twelve-month statute of limitations period set forth in Labor Code section 5407,2 or alternatively, that its right to due process was violated when the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) failed to hold a hearing on the jurisdictional issue. Similarly, defendant FCI contends that the WCJ must first determine whether the S&W petition was timely commenced pursuant to section 5407 requirements before proceeding with joinder of parties, or alternatively, that it is significantly prejudiced by the decision of the WCJ to not allow a hearing on the statute of limitations defense and obtain a dismissal of the S&W claim if appropriate.

  The WCJ's decision was an interlocutory procedural order that did not decide the merits of the statute of limitations issue, so it was not a final order subject to reconsideration. The petitions for reconsideration were dismissed and removal was denied because no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12374692 · 2021-09-07 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration, treat the petition as a Petition for Removal, and deny removal.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's June 16, 2021 Findings of Fact resolved only an intermediate procedural issue and was not a final decision. The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  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 OFFICE OF JODIE P. FILKINS, A P.C.
• LAW OFFICE OF JODIE P. FILKINS
• LAW OFFICE OF JODIE P. FILKINS, A.P.C
• LAW OFFICES OF JODIE P. FILKINS
• Law Office of Jodie P. Filkins

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.