Law Office of Tracey Lazarus

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Permanent disability rating2
• Apportionment1
• Psyche AOE/COE1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Anaheim 5
• Santa Ana 3
• Riverside 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Long Beach 1
• San Diego 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 applicant
• 4 returned for more record
• 3 for the defense

Counted over 13 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.

• ADJ285288 · 2025-01-03 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, age 49, while employed on 2/29/2000, and during the period 4/15/1995 to 2/29/2000, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment as a soil technician in California with his general employer being GTG, Inc. dba Leighton & Associates, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was American Motorists Insurance, now identified as California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility, Tristar Risk Management, for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company in liquidation. 2. The applicant did not have dual or special employment with Koll Construction Company on February 29, 2000 nor during the period October 1999 to February 29, 2000.

  The evidence showed Koll did not exercise control over applicant's work, applicant was paid and supervised by GTG, Inc., and Koll's role was limited to scheduling and oversight without direct control, thus no dual or special employment existed.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ9983378 · 2024-09-09 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings & Award (F&A) issued on May 18, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained a catastrophic industrial injury to his lumbar spine, thoracic spine, cervical spine, right shoulder, and psyche which resulted in applicant sustaining 85% permanent partial disability with a corresponding life pension.

  Applicant failed to present substantial medical evidence to rebut the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) or the Combined Values Chart (CVC). Vocational expert's report improperly included medical opinions, which is not substantial evidence. The Board found insufficient description of work restrictions and lack of medical evidence on CVC rebuttal, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11399411 · 2023-12-22 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 17, 2022, 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 face, mouth, jaw, and neck in the form of squamous cell cancer and subsequent lung cancer.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the QME Dr. Lonky's medical opinions were substantial evidence, reasonably based on facts and history, and supported causation that applicant's cancer was caused at least in part by workplace chemical exposure.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10647918 · 2023-08-28 · Anaheim District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 1, 2022. In the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant did not qualify for the 240-week exception to the 104-week cap on temporary disability benefits set forth in Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(C),2 because the partial removal of applicant's skull did not qualify as an "amputation" under the statute, as interpreted by the Appeals Board in Cruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco (Cruz) (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1281 (Appeals Board en banc).

  The Appeals Board found that the partial removal of the skull does not qualify as an amputation under the statute and Cruz precedent, as the skull is not an external projecting body part or appendage, and there was insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's contention.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9310145 · 2022-08-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, applicant was employed as a laborer on October 4, 2011, and defendant stipulated to that applicant was employed on that date and that his occupational variant was 360. Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10835; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The stipulation that applicant's occupational variant is 360 has not been disputed. As applicant's specific injury occurred on October 4, 2011, and his cumulative trauma injury began on October 4, 2011, applicant is entitled to the higher group number. We note that the assignment of the higher occupational group does not change the recommended permanent disability rating.

  The parties stipulated that applicant's occupational variant for the specific injury on October 4, 2011 was 360, and the Board found applicant entitled to the higher group number for the cumulative trauma period as well.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10793276 · 2022-05-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5In this case, in order to determine if applicant sustained one or two cumulative trauma injuries, and, if she sustained two injuries, the portion of applicant's permanent disability caused by each injury, we must return this matter to the trial level for further development of the medical

  The Appeals Board found that the medical record was insufficient to determine whether there were one or two cumulative trauma injuries and to apportion permanent disability between them, requiring remand for further medical development.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12944107 · 2022-03-30 · Riverside District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, the parties stipulated that applicant sustained injuries AOE/COE to his left forearm, left elbow, left shoulder, left wrist, chest, neck, ribs, abdomen left side, facial, lung left side, hypertension, vision, and headache. The parties also stipulated that applicant was not employed by defendant for six months when he was injured. Additionally, applicant claims injury AOE/COE to other body parts, including to his psyche. Therefore, we must consider whether applicant sustained an injury to his psyche as a result of a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition," within the meaning of section 3208.3(d).

  The WCAB found that the applicant's psychiatric injury was caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition, thus not barred by the six-month employment requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3(d).

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10239329 · 2021-05-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. Defendant, Zurich American Insurance Company, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on September 17, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, is in need of ongoing in-patient supportive care to cure and relieve him from the effects of his industrial injury. Defendant contends in its petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant is entitled in-patient supportive care. Applicant filed an answer to the petition for reconsideration, contending that it should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which he recommended that defendant's petition for reconsideration be denied. Subsequently, at our request the parties participated in a commissioners' settlement conference and agreed to resolve applicant's claims by compromise and release. Applicant's adult daughter, Andrea the applicant, was appointed Guardian ad Litem and Trustee (GAL) on May 14, 2021. The GAL signed the Compromise and Release, in behalf of applicant. The Compromise and Release was filed on May 24, 2021.

  The WCJ found entitlement to ongoing in-patient supportive care, but the parties resolved the claim by compromise and release, which the WCAB approved as adequate and in the applicant's best interest.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11624477 · 2021-03-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, the reports from Dr. Lineback, and his deposition testimony are the only medical evidence in the trial record. As noted above, having examined applicant and reviewed the extensive medical record Dr. Lineback agreed with the opinions of treating physician Dr. Reyes, and academic pulmonologist, Dr. Kafi, that applicant's lung/respiratory system condition was the result of his exposure to aluminum dust while employed by defendant. (Joint Exh. 2, pp. 2 § 3; Joint Exh. 3, p. 3.) Dr. Lineback explained in detail his analysis and the reasoning for his conclusion that applicant sustained a lung/respiratory injury AOE/COE. (see e.g. Joint Exh. 5, deposition transcript, pp. 23 § 24; Joint Exh. 3, pp. 2 § 3.) Dr. Lineback's opinion regarding the cause of applicant's condition is based on pertinent facts, an appropriate examination of applicant, and an accurate history. Thus his opinions, as stated in his reports and deposition testimony, constitute substantial evidence. (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. supra; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).)

  The only medical evidence in the record, from QME Dr. Lineback, supported industrial causation, and applicant's testimony regarding exposure was found credible; no contrary evidence was submitted by defendant.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ487398 · 2024-08-20 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In its December 18, 2023 decision, the Court distinguished the circumstances of Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493], and found that there was no equitable tolling because it was "CIGA's own inaction that denied it a remedy." (Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1213, 1239- 1240 [89 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The Court thus directed the Appeals Board to rescind its June 13, 2022 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration of the California Guarantee Insurance Association ("CIGA") and its August 8, 2022 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. (Id. at pp. 1240-1241.) The Court also directed the Board to order the dismissal of Zurich American Insurance Company as a defendant, based on the denial of CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909. (Ibid.)

  The Court of Appeal directed the Appeals Board to rescind prior decisions and dismiss Zurich American Insurance Company as a defendant based on denial of CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7191443 · 2023-12-19 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on July 9, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ denied applicant's appeal of the July 13, 2020 Independent Medical Review (IMR) final determination denying the request for authorization for extended Nucynta, finding, in part, that the applicant had not shown clear and convincing evidence sufficient to set aside the IMR determination, and that the determination of the Administrative Director dated July 13, 2020 remained in effect.

  The WCJ's denial of the petition for reconsideration was based on the lack of clear and convincing evidence to set aside the IMR determination, and the WCAB found no error in the WCJ's application of controlling case law but remanded for settlement consideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ487398 · 2022-08-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, the WCA failed to electronically file a copy of the arbitration record with the Report. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10995(c)(3).) The Appeals Board has not received these documents despite repeated requests.9 As a result, the Appeals Board has no access to the arbitration file, and cannot review any of the exhibits filed by the parties; the minutes of the arbitration proceedings; any stipulations and issues entered into by the parties; the arbitrator's summary and description of exhibits admitted into evidence; the arbitrator's evidentiary rulings; the witnesses who testified with a summary of their testimony; verbatim transcripts of witness testimony; or even the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision at issue herein. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c).)

  The Appeals Board could not conduct a meaningful review because the arbitrator failed to forward the arbitration record as required, depriving the Board of the ability to review the evidence and proceedings. Due process and regulatory requirements mandate remand for a new decision based on a complete record.

  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. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• LAW OFFICE OF TRACEY LAZARUS
• LAW OFFICES OF TRACEY LAZARUS
• Law Office of Tracey Lazarus
• TRACEY LAZARUS, ESQ.

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.