Law Offices of Arash Khorsandi

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Jurisdiction / venue3
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR3
• Permanent total disability2
• Apportionment1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 5
• Redding 2
• Anaheim 1
• Long Beach 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Pomona 1
• San Jose 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.

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

Counted over 11 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.

• ADJ16567838 · 2026-03-13 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the evidence demonstrates that the going and coming rule was inapplicable because the applicant did not participate in a "local commute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours," as required for the rule to apply. First, his commute does not fit within the definition of "local"2 since applicant testified that he traveled in the van for an hour or more in each direction, from Yuba City, California, located in Sutter County, to Winters, California, located in Yolo County. (3/4/24 Transcript of Record, at pp. 27-28.) As the Court noted, the distance from the work site to applicant's home in Yuba City "was approximately 60 miles" and thus outside the definition of "local." (the applicant, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1169.)

  Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the going and coming rule applies because applicant's commute was not local, did not have fixed hours, and defendant's evidence was unreliable.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ17821210 · 2025-08-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7An expedited hearing was held before WCJ Hursh on 3/19/2025. The WCJ determined that the medical evidence set forth in the peer review reports failed to demonstrate any significant change in condition. The rehabilitation program was ongoing treatment having been instigated since January, 2024. Hence the WCJ invoked the rule of Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 CCC 910. He invalidated the UR Determination indicating that the Petitioner could not unilaterally discontinue previously authorized ongoing care without a showing of a significant change of condition. He invoked the Appeals Board's jurisdiction to find that the treatment requested was reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the Applicant of the effects of the injury and ordered the Defendant to provide same.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found that defendants failed to show a material change in circumstances to justify a new utilization review for ongoing brain injury rehabilitation care, thus the prior authorization remains valid and the treatment must continue.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16034617 · 2025-08-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On November 12, 2024, defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. On January 21, 2025, we denied defendant's petition. (Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration, dated January 21, 2025.) On April 28, 2025, the parties proceeded to trial and framed for decision the issue of "[j]urisdiction of WCJ to determine need for medical care as requested by Dr. Elliott Block as set

  The WCJ properly exercised authority under Labor Code section 4604 to order compliance with a valid UR determination, and the UR determination was final and binding under section 4610.5(f)(1).

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11995067 · 2025-07-25 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 9, 2022. The WCJ found that while employed on March 1, 2019 as a dry cleaning assistant by defendant, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head, face, and neck and claims injury to various body parts; that Dr. Marcel Ponton was the medical-legal evaluator pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.32; that his report was obtained in violation of section 4062.3; that his report was struck and inadmissible in all further proceedings. She ordered that Dr. Ponton was replaced as the medical-legal neuropsychological evaluator and that the parties should select a new evaluator to conduct a complete medical-legal neuropsychological assessment.

  The Appeals Board found that Dr. Ponton was a treating physician selected from the employer's MPN and not a qualified medical evaluator selected from a panel, so section 4062.3 does not apply to him.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17686288 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. With respect to the assertion by petitioner that the WCJ's Award "far exceeds" the treatment recommendations of the request for authorization (RFA) from applicant's primary treating physician, Vibhay Prasad, M.D. (Petition, p. 8.), the WCJ's Award provides for "further and ongoing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills." Such Award is supported by the Findings of Fact, numbered paragraph 4, which states, "Applicant requires further and continuing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills," which is in turn justified by the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Significant Panel Decision). Further, in addition to the reasons set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe that petitioner's reliance on the case of Allied Signal Aero. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wiggs) (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1077 [84 Cal.Comp.Cases 367] in support of the assertion that the Appeals Board has no jurisdiction to review the medical necessity and reasonableness of home health care is misplaced. Wiggs does not negate the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v.

  The WCAB panel found that the WCJ had jurisdiction to order continuing treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills despite a timely utilization review denial, relying on the Patterson line of cases and rejecting the defendant's jurisdiction argument based on the timely RFA denial. The panel also found insufficient substantial medical evidence to discontinue treatment, crediting the treating physician Dr. Prasad's recommendations over the utilization review physician Dr. Gart's denial.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12632885 · 2025-05-06 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4On February 6, 2025, the WCJ issued the F&A, determining in relevant part that the analysis in Patterson, supra, applied to the instant home health care dispute. (Finding of Fact No. 2.) Following a review of the evidentiary record, the WCJ concluded that defendant had not met its burden of establishing a change in applicant's condition or circumstance that would require a review of the medical necessity of previously authorized medical treatment or services. (Finding of Fact No. 3.) Accordingly, the WCJ ordered defendant to continue to provide home health care services at the previously authorized levels of 28 hours per week. (Award No. "A".)

  The WCJ and WCAB found defendant failed to meet burden to show change in applicant's condition or circumstance to justify termination of home health care, applying Patterson analysis to ongoing treatment originally authorized by Utilization Review.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16034617 · 2025-01-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3An applicant's right to recover workers' compensation benefits is subject to the conditions set forth in section 3600. Among these is that "the injury is not caused by the intoxication, by alcohol or the unlawful use of a controlled substance, of the injured employee." (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(4).) Intoxication is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof rests on the employer, as the defendant, to establish that affirmative defense. (Lab. Code, § 5705(b).) To carry its burden of proof, a defendant is required to prove each fact supporting its claim by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.) As explained in section 3202.5:

  Defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant was intoxicated at the time of injury or that intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury, based on lack of toxicology evidence, eyewitness testimony, and medical opinion linking intoxication to injury.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12056705 · 2024-12-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the September 24, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a driver on October 19, 2018, sustained industrial injury to his head, brain, eyes, ears, back, face, neck, right foot, urological dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, teeth, TMJ, and sleep. The WCJ found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has jurisdiction to resolve the instant medical dispute and ordered defendant to continue to authorize medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills (CNS) unless and until defendant can establish a material change in applicant's condition or circumstance.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that defendant did not establish a material change in applicant's condition to justify cessation of treatment, thus WCAB retains jurisdiction and defendant must continue authorizing treatment at CNS.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11314069 · 2024-11-12 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 20, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on June 19, 2017 as a roofer by defendant Luke Roofing, Inc., sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his brain, head, lumbar spine, chest, thoracic cavity, right rib, cardiovascular system (in the form of hypertension), vestibular system, respiratory system, auditory system (in the form of tinnitus), visual system (in the form of light sensitivity and low vision), and psychiatric system, but did not sustain an industrial injury to his cervical spine and endocrine system (in the form of diabetes).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16567838 · 2024-05-29 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4At trial, the parties submitted the question of whether the applicant's case was barred by the Going and Coming Rule. The Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision issued on 3/25/24, finding that the applicant's case was not barred by the Going and Coming Rule. The Petition for Reconsideration was then filed by defendant, who disagreed with this determination.

  The injury occurred during a van pool commute that served a business purpose and involved special and extraordinary circumstances, so the Going and Coming Rule bar was rejected.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9933107 · 2022-06-10 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues. This is our Decision After Reconsideration. In the Findings and Award dated November 4, 2020, the Workers' Compensation Arbitrator ("Arbitrator") found that applicant is "100% permanently totally disabled pursuant to Labor Code section 4662(a)(4)1 total mental incapacity; and/or LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234," and that "all of applicant's current disability is apportioned to his March 6, 2015 industrial traumatic brain injury per the AMEs and QME in neurology, neuropsychology, urology, orthopedic and ophthalmology." Applicant's employer, the City of Los Angeles ("City"), filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the Arbitrator's decision.

  The Board credited the agreed medical examiners and vocational expert who found the applicant totally mentally incapacitated and unable to participate in the open labor market, rejecting the defendant's vocational expert's opinion as non-credible.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12349952 · 2025-10-13 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Finding and Orders (F&O) issued on February 18, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  The panel found that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was not shown to deny removal and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision, but granted removal to correct clerical errors and amend the order to protect privacy.

  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.

• THE LAW OFFICE OF ARASH KHORSANDI
• LAW OFFICE OF ARASH KHORSANDI
• THE LAW OFFICE OF ARASH KHORSANDI, PC
• Law Offices of Arash Khorsandi
• The Law Office of Arash Khorsandi
• Law Office of Arash Khorsandi

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.