California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Fred L. Fong, APC

Law Offices of Fred L. Fong, APC is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to SJDB voucher (2), AOE/COE (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Marina del Rey, then Long Beach.

Decisions: 8
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 3

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Marina del Rey 6
Long Beach 1
Los Angeles 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.

5 for the applicant
4 for the defense

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ11189387 · 2025-06-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the F&A and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Appeals Board found that the AME reports did not constitute substantial medical evidence as they failed to address all body parts injured as described by applicant's unrebutted trial testimony, and that the Board has authority to order further development of the record to achieve substantial justice.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ16283940 · 2025-05-22 · Marina del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment pursuant to Rule 17302(b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302(b).)
The Appeals Board affirmed the denial of a second RTWS payment based on Rule 17302(b) and held that the applicant's remedy to challenge the rule's validity lies in Superior Court, not the Appeals Board.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11812549 · 2023-09-07 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The WCJ's Report observes that there may be error in the calculation of the defendant's credit for temporary partial disability, and requests that we return the matter to the trial level for consideration of whether there is good cause to set aside the credit determination. (Report, at p. 9.) We also observe that the WCJ has deferred the issue of the amounts owed during the period of temporary partial disability. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) Given the potential need to recalculate the amount of the credit, coupled with the need for development of the record on the issue of the monetary indemnity owed, we will amend Finding of Fact No. 3, which fixes defendant's credit rights, to defer the issue pending development of the record.
The issue of credit against future temporary disability indemnity payments is deferred pending further development of the record due to potential error in calculation and need for recalculation.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10887310 · 2023-01-30 · Marina del Rey District OfficeSJDB voucherapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5The burden of proof remains with defendant to show that it offered regular, modified or alternative work. (Opus One Labs v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fndkyan) (2019) 84 Cal. Comp. Cases 634, 636 [2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 51] (writ denied).) We conclude that defendant has not met its burden of proof to show that it offered regular, modified, or alternative work to applicant for at least 12 months. The subsequent employment cannot be added to meet the 12 months requirement because the subsequent employment was with a different employer. Accordingly, we amend the March 13, 2020 Finding and Order to find that applicant is entitled to a SJDB voucher.
Applicant sustained a 3% permanent disability to the lower extremity and did not receive an offer of regular, modified, or alternative work lasting at least 12 months from the same employer, entitling him to a SJDB voucher.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ504245 · 2022-11-28 · Marina del Rey District OfficeSJDB voucherdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The two vouchers here at issue for injuries dated January 29, 2007 and March 3, 2007 were issued on July 17, 2017. (Joint Findings of Fact; Defendant's Exhibit B, Letter from Albertson's attaching two vouchers.) Per section 4658.5(d), these two vouchers expired on July 17, 2019.
The vouchers expired two years after issuance on July 17, 2019, and unused funds were returned after expiration, so no reimbursement was allowed.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ13056565 · 2021-10-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, Dr. Regev and Dr. Barkodar both recommended that applicant be examined by an ophthalmologist because the issue of injury to his eyes was beyond their area of expertise. The Appeals Board 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].) The Appeals Board may not leave matters undeveloped where it is clear that additional discovery is needed. (Id. at p. 404.) The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on a threshold issue. (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board may direct the augmentation of the medical record where there are material deficiencies in specific medical records or reports. (Id. at 1121-1122.) Again, both doctors stated that they found no evidence of an industrial neurological injury, but as to the issue of an ophthalmological injury, applicant would need to be evaluated by an ophthalmologist. Thus, although the WCJ noted that that applicant testified credibly regarding the light exposure, and that there is corroboration for that exposure (Report, p. 6), there is no medical evidence in the trial record that addresses the issue of injury AOE/COE and the record must be further developed.
The record lacked substantial evidence on injury AOE/COE due to absence of ophthalmological evaluation, and the Appeals Board has a duty to develop the record further when evidence is insufficient.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10807065 · 2021-09-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3applicant (deceased), through the Law Offices of Fred Fong, who represents several of the applicant's dependents, has filed a timely, verified and properly served reconsideration petition. This petition asserts that the WCJ erred in determining that decedent the applicant's fatal accident due to a fall from a carport roof was not attributable to the defendant employer's serious and willful misconduct within the meaning of Labor Code section 4453. Petitioner makes this contention on the following grounds:
The petitioners failed to prove that the employer or a designated representative had knowledge of or recklessly disregarded safety order violations causing the applicant's death, as required by Labor Code section 4453.1. The evidence showed the applicant had autonomy over the unsafe acts and the employer had safety programs in place. The OSHA fines and settlement did not establish employer misconduct under the statute.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ16283940 · 2025-02-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment pursuant to Rule 17302(b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302(b).)
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review whether Rule 17302(b) is authorized and consistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and to consider constitutional challenges.
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 OFFICES OF FRED L. FONG, APC
Law Offices of Fred L. Fong, APC
LAW OFFICES OF FRED L. FONG
Law Offices of Fred L. Fong

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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Law Offices of Fred L. Fong, APC

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

4 for the defense

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ11189387 · 2025-06-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the F&A and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Appeals Board found that the AME reports did not constitute substantial medical evidence as they failed to address all body parts injured as described by applicant's unrebutted trial testimony, and that the Board has authority to order further development of the record to achieve substantial justice.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ16283940 · 2025-05-22 · Marina del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment pursuant to Rule 17302(b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302(b).)

The Appeals Board affirmed the denial of a second RTWS payment based on Rule 17302(b) and held that the applicant's remedy to challenge the rule's validity lies in Superior Court, not the Appeals Board.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11812549 · 2023-09-07 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The WCJ's Report observes that there may be error in the calculation of the defendant's credit for temporary partial disability, and requests that we return the matter to the trial level for consideration of whether there is good cause to set aside the credit determination. (Report, at p. 9.) We also observe that the WCJ has deferred the issue of the amounts owed during the period of temporary partial disability. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) Given the potential need to recalculate the amount of the credit, coupled with the need for development of the record on the issue of the monetary indemnity owed, we will amend Finding of Fact No. 3, which fixes defendant's credit rights, to defer the issue pending development of the record.

The issue of credit against future temporary disability indemnity payments is deferred pending further development of the record due to potential error in calculation and need for recalculation.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10887310 · 2023-01-30 · Marina del Rey District OfficeSJDB voucherapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5The burden of proof remains with defendant to show that it offered regular, modified or alternative work. (Opus One Labs v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fndkyan) (2019) 84 Cal. Comp. Cases 634, 636 [2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 51] (writ denied).) We conclude that defendant has not met its burden of proof to show that it offered regular, modified, or alternative work to applicant for at least 12 months. The subsequent employment cannot be added to meet the 12 months requirement because the subsequent employment was with a different employer. Accordingly, we amend the March 13, 2020 Finding and Order to find that applicant is entitled to a SJDB voucher.

Applicant sustained a 3% permanent disability to the lower extremity and did not receive an offer of regular, modified, or alternative work lasting at least 12 months from the same employer, entitling him to a SJDB voucher.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ504245 · 2022-11-28 · Marina del Rey District OfficeSJDB voucherdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2The two vouchers here at issue for injuries dated January 29, 2007 and March 3, 2007 were issued on July 17, 2017. (Joint Findings of Fact; Defendant's Exhibit B, Letter from Albertson's attaching two vouchers.) Per section 4658.5(d), these two vouchers expired on July 17, 2019.

The vouchers expired two years after issuance on July 17, 2019, and unused funds were returned after expiration, so no reimbursement was allowed.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ13056565 · 2021-10-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, Dr. Regev and Dr. Barkodar both recommended that applicant be examined by an ophthalmologist because the issue of injury to his eyes was beyond their area of expertise. The Appeals Board 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].) The Appeals Board may not leave matters undeveloped where it is clear that additional discovery is needed. (Id. at p. 404.) The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on a threshold issue. (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board may direct the augmentation of the medical record where there are material deficiencies in specific medical records or reports. (Id. at 1121-1122.) Again, both doctors stated that they found no evidence of an industrial neurological injury, but as to the issue of an ophthalmological injury, applicant would need to be evaluated by an ophthalmologist. Thus, although the WCJ noted that that applicant testified credibly regarding the light exposure, and that there is corroboration for that exposure (Report, p. 6), there is no medical evidence in the trial record that addresses the issue of injury AOE/COE and the record must be further developed.

The record lacked substantial evidence on injury AOE/COE due to absence of ophthalmological evaluation, and the Appeals Board has a duty to develop the record further when evidence is insufficient.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10807065 · 2021-09-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3applicant (deceased), through the Law Offices of Fred Fong, who represents several of the applicant's dependents, has filed a timely, verified and properly served reconsideration petition. This petition asserts that the WCJ erred in determining that decedent the applicant's fatal accident due to a fall from a carport roof was not attributable to the defendant employer's serious and willful misconduct within the meaning of Labor Code section 4453. Petitioner makes this contention on the following grounds:

The petitioners failed to prove that the employer or a designated representative had knowledge of or recklessly disregarded safety order violations causing the applicant's death, as required by Labor Code section 4453.1. The evidence showed the applicant had autonomy over the unsafe acts and the employer had safety programs in place. The OSHA fines and settlement did not establish employer misconduct under the statute.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ16283940 · 2025-02-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment pursuant to Rule 17302(b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302(b).)

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review whether Rule 17302(b) is authorized and consistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and to consider constitutional challenges.

Official decision · page 1 →