California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of George Fogy

Law Offices of George Fogy is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2023. The disputes run to Temporary disability (2), AOE/COE (1) and Psyche AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Sacramento, then Stockton. The firm it meets most often is Mullen & Filippi (2).

Decisions: 7
Years: 2021–2023
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 6 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

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

Who they face

2 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Sacramento 3
Stockton 3
Santa Rosa 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.

4 for the applicant
3 for the defense

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ13410725 · 2022-09-07 · Sacramento District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Additionally, the WCJ heard and weighed the testimony adduced at trial. The WCJ gave due consideration "to the credibility of all witness testimony including observations of the demeanor and expressions of the witnesses," and concluded that "[a]pplicant's testimony was credible and more persuasive." (Report, at p. 4.) We have given the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness(es). (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination(s). (Ibid.)
The WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight, supported by QME Dr. Nataliya Belfor's report attributing 60% causation to an actual employment event, and the panel found the evidence supported that actual events of employment were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11229378 · 2021-10-05 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3DISCUSSION Our review of the record indicates that there is no evidence that applicant was released to regular duty, or that his right shoulder/right wrist condition was permanent and stationary prior to the October 23, 2018 report from Dr. Robson. Also, as noted, Dr. Abelow testified that based on the report from Dr. Robson, applicant was no longer temporarily totally disabled after October 23, 2018. Defendant is correct that applicant's modified duty, which ended September 3, 2018, was due to his prior right knee injury, not his right shoulder/right wrist injury. However, applicant was not working for the period from September 4, 2018, through October 23, 2018, the date that Dr. Robson determined applicant's condition had become permanent and stationary, and the date that Dr. Abelow testified that applicant was no longer temporarily totally disabled. In our prior Opinion we denied applicant's claim for temporary disability indemnity benefits from September 3, 2018, through September 3, 2020, and instead found that the benefits were owed for the period from September 4, 2018, through October 23, 2018. Having again reviewed the trial record we see no factual or legal basis for changing our prior Opinion. Accordingly, we deny reconsideration.
The record showed no evidence that the applicant was released to regular duty or permanent and stationary before October 23, 2018, and the applicant was not working from September 4, 2018, through October 23, 2018, supporting the award of temporary disability benefits for that period.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10177509 · 2021-09-07 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant 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 June 29, 20211. As relevant herein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to various body parts, that applicant sustained permanent disability in the amount of 7% after apportionment, and that there is a need for further medical treatment to various body parts.
The WCJ's findings on injury and cumulative trauma were inconsistent and not supported by the evidence, leading to rescission and remand for clarification and further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11229378 · 2021-07-22 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Finally, as discussed above, applicant's right shoulder, right wrist/hand condition was P&S as of October 24, 2018. We note that the parties agreed that applicant was performing modified duty from February 28, 2018, through September 3, 2018, when defendant could no longer accommodate his restrictions.3 Since defendant could not accommodate applicant's work restrictions, applicant would be considered temporarily totally disabled until his condition became permanent and stationary. (General Foundry Service v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (Jackson) (1986) 42 Cal.3d 331, 339, fn. 5 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases375]; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 417, 421 - 422 [24 Cal.Comp.Cases 144].) Based thereon, it is appropriate that applicant receive TDI benefits for the period from September 4, 2018, through October 23, 2018.
Applicant was temporarily totally disabled from September 4, 2018 through October 23, 2018, as defendant could not accommodate his work restrictions during that period, before his condition became permanent and stationary.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ16369204 · 2023-08-11 · Stockton 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The WCJ's decision included a threshold issue making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but the petitioner only challenged an interlocutory finding, so the removal standard was applied. The petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy, leading to denial of the petition and dismissal of removal as moot.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13522979 · 2022-11-18 · Sacramento 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The panel adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and found no basis to grant reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10383807 · 2022-01-14 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.
The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and rescinded the prior WCJ decision, returning the matter for further proceedings.
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 GEORGE FOGY
LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE FOGY
LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE FOGY, PC
Law Offices of George Fogy
Law Office of George Fogy

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 George Fogy

Decisions

Years

2021–2023

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

3 for the defense

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ13410725 · 2022-09-07 · Sacramento District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Additionally, the WCJ heard and weighed the testimony adduced at trial. The WCJ gave due consideration "to the credibility of all witness testimony including observations of the demeanor and expressions of the witnesses," and concluded that "[a]pplicant's testimony was credible and more persuasive." (Report, at p. 4.) We have given the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness(es). (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination(s). (Ibid.)

The WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight, supported by QME Dr. Nataliya Belfor's report attributing 60% causation to an actual employment event, and the panel found the evidence supported that actual events of employment were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11229378 · 2021-10-05 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3DISCUSSION Our review of the record indicates that there is no evidence that applicant was released to regular duty, or that his right shoulder/right wrist condition was permanent and stationary prior to the October 23, 2018 report from Dr. Robson. Also, as noted, Dr. Abelow testified that based on the report from Dr. Robson, applicant was no longer temporarily totally disabled after October 23, 2018. Defendant is correct that applicant's modified duty, which ended September 3, 2018, was due to his prior right knee injury, not his right shoulder/right wrist injury. However, applicant was not working for the period from September 4, 2018, through October 23, 2018, the date that Dr. Robson determined applicant's condition had become permanent and stationary, and the date that Dr. Abelow testified that applicant was no longer temporarily totally disabled. In our prior Opinion we denied applicant's claim for temporary disability indemnity benefits from September 3, 2018, through September 3, 2020, and instead found that the benefits were owed for the period from September 4, 2018, through October 23, 2018. Having again reviewed the trial record we see no factual or legal basis for changing our prior Opinion. Accordingly, we deny reconsideration.

The record showed no evidence that the applicant was released to regular duty or permanent and stationary before October 23, 2018, and the applicant was not working from September 4, 2018, through October 23, 2018, supporting the award of temporary disability benefits for that period.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10177509 · 2021-09-07 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant 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 June 29, 20211. As relevant herein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to various body parts, that applicant sustained permanent disability in the amount of 7% after apportionment, and that there is a need for further medical treatment to various body parts.

The WCJ's findings on injury and cumulative trauma were inconsistent and not supported by the evidence, leading to rescission and remand for clarification and further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11229378 · 2021-07-22 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Finally, as discussed above, applicant's right shoulder, right wrist/hand condition was P&S as of October 24, 2018. We note that the parties agreed that applicant was performing modified duty from February 28, 2018, through September 3, 2018, when defendant could no longer accommodate his restrictions.3 Since defendant could not accommodate applicant's work restrictions, applicant would be considered temporarily totally disabled until his condition became permanent and stationary. (General Foundry Service v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (Jackson) (1986) 42 Cal.3d 331, 339, fn. 5 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases375]; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 417, 421 - 422 [24 Cal.Comp.Cases 144].) Based thereon, it is appropriate that applicant receive TDI benefits for the period from September 4, 2018, through October 23, 2018.

Applicant was temporarily totally disabled from September 4, 2018 through October 23, 2018, as defendant could not accommodate his work restrictions during that period, before his condition became permanent and stationary.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ16369204 · 2023-08-11 · Stockton 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The WCJ's decision included a threshold issue making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but the petitioner only challenged an interlocutory finding, so the removal standard was applied. The petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy, leading to denial of the petition and dismissal of removal as moot.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13522979 · 2022-11-18 · Sacramento 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

The panel adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and found no basis to grant reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10383807 · 2022-01-14 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and rescinded the prior WCJ decision, returning the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →