California WCABLaw firm

Legal Service Bureau

Legal Service Bureau is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Liens (3), Sanctions under Labor Code §5813 (2) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Long Beach, then Van Nuys.

Decisions: 13
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 8

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

Long Beach 4
Van Nuys 3
Anaheim 1
Fresno 1
Los Angeles 1
Marina del Rey 1
Oxnard 1
Pomona 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 defense
2 for the applicant

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.

ADJ1428798 · 2024-06-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6On the issue of Sanctions, the undersigned did not see a need for sanctions. The sanctions provision in workers compensation law, Labor Code § 5813 was originally based on Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5. Now while these two code sections have evolved apart from each other, the key to interpreting either of them is to keep in mind that the original version of section 5813 was based on Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5. In civil practice, sanctions under this code section are not mere discovery sanctions but must be the "result of bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." See Labor Code § 5813 and similar language in Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5. The modern version of section 128.5 also contains more detail, including a definition of "frivolous" which is defined as, "totally or completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party."
No bad faith or frivolous conduct found; differences of opinion on medical billing do not warrant sanctions; public policy disfavors sanctions for changing positions to more moderate ones.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ1797208 · 2021-09-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimants David Silver, M.D., and David Bresler, Ph.D., jointly filed a Petition for Removal and Request for Immediate Stay (Petition for Removal) on June 7, 2021 regarding the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)'s May 27, 2021 order submitting these matters for decision. Dr. Bresler subsequently filed a Petition for Reconsideration on July 7, 2021 and Dr. Silver filed a Petition for Reconsideration and a Petition for Disqualification on July 8, 2021. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Petitions for Reconsideration, the Petition for Disqualification, and the contents of the WCJ's reports with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and because the WCJ issued a decision on June 17, 2021, rendering lien claimants' Petition for Removal moot, we will dismiss the Petition for Removal. For the reasons stated in the WCJ's July 20, 2021 report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny both Petitions for Reconsideration and the Petition for Disqualification.
The lien claimants were given multiple continuances and ample opportunity to properly file their exhibits but failed to do so, resulting in no due process violation and proper exclusion of exhibits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ117564 · 2026-01-20 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant David Silver, M.D., seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 31, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: the Appeals Board previously found that applicant did not sustain injury in the form of fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome and reflex sympathetic dystrophy;1 lien claimant provided treatment to applicant for those non-industrial conditions; defendant has no liability for payment for the treatment of these non-industrial body parts or conditions; and the issues of penalties are moot. She ordered that the lien was dismissed.
The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration but deferred the final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3301560 · 2025-11-14 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant has filed a petition for removal from a minute order excusing a witness from trial issued on September 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board found no error in the WCJ's decision to excuse the witness and that the lien claimant had conducted substantial cross-examination, thus no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown to justify removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ1504028 · 2025-10-09 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as there is presently no order or decision of the WCJ as to the issue raised by lien claimant, and thus, the issue is not ripe for adjudication. Upon return the parties may raise any objections to any rulings made at trial regarding witness testimony and may thereafter seek appropriate relief if they are aggrieved.
The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because there was no order or decision from the WCJ on the issue raised, making it not ripe for adjudication.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ2275429 · 2025-03-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Finally, WCAB Rule 10960 provides that "if the worker's compensation judge assigned to hear the matter and the grounds for disqualification are known," a petition for disqualification "shall be filed not more than 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.) Here, lien claimant seeks disqualification in response to actions by the WCJ that took place in 2021, several years after the ten-day period specified in WCAB Rule 10960 elapsed. Thus, the Petition for Disqualification must be dismissed.
The petition for disqualification was dismissed because it was filed after the 10-day deadline and failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish disqualification.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ745634 · 2022-09-29 · Long Beach 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 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 →
ADJ2882050 · 2021-12-08 · Long Beach 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.1 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ2882050 · 2021-06-09 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6The Petition for Disqualification was filed untimely on March 30, 2021. The basis for the petition is the allegation that this WCJ demonstrated an appearance of bias by disqualifying Lien Claimant's representative sua sponte and without prior notice to Petitioner or his client. This alleged ground for disqualification was known to Petitioner when he signed his Petition for Removal on November 19, 2020, as it comprises one of several arguments made in said petition. See Petition for Removal, supra, p. 15, lns. 23-28.] Since Petitioner was aware of the herein alleged ground for disqualification as early as November 19, 2020 (if not sooner at the Lien Trial on October 29, 2020), the Petition for Disqualification should have been filed no later than the end of November 2020 to be in compliance with the ten day filing requirement. (Cal. Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.) Instead, Petitioner waited over four months to file the Petition for Disqualification. As such, the filing of the Petition for Disqualification on March 30, 2021, was untimely and the petition should be denied accordingly.
The Petition for Disqualification was filed more than four months after the petitioner became aware of the alleged grounds, exceeding the ten-day filing requirement under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.
Official decision · page 6 →

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.

LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU
Legal Service Bureau

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 →

Legal Service Bureau

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

10 for the defense

2 for the applicant

Decisions

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

ADJ1428798 · 2024-06-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6On the issue of Sanctions, the undersigned did not see a need for sanctions. The sanctions provision in workers compensation law, Labor Code § 5813 was originally based on Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5. Now while these two code sections have evolved apart from each other, the key to interpreting either of them is to keep in mind that the original version of section 5813 was based on Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5. In civil practice, sanctions under this code section are not mere discovery sanctions but must be the "result of bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." See Labor Code § 5813 and similar language in Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5. The modern version of section 128.5 also contains more detail, including a definition of "frivolous" which is defined as, "totally or completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party."

No bad faith or frivolous conduct found; differences of opinion on medical billing do not warrant sanctions; public policy disfavors sanctions for changing positions to more moderate ones.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ1797208 · 2021-09-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimants David Silver, M.D., and David Bresler, Ph.D., jointly filed a Petition for Removal and Request for Immediate Stay (Petition for Removal) on June 7, 2021 regarding the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)'s May 27, 2021 order submitting these matters for decision. Dr. Bresler subsequently filed a Petition for Reconsideration on July 7, 2021 and Dr. Silver filed a Petition for Reconsideration and a Petition for Disqualification on July 8, 2021. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Petitions for Reconsideration, the Petition for Disqualification, and the contents of the WCJ's reports with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and because the WCJ issued a decision on June 17, 2021, rendering lien claimants' Petition for Removal moot, we will dismiss the Petition for Removal. For the reasons stated in the WCJ's July 20, 2021 report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny both Petitions for Reconsideration and the Petition for Disqualification.

The lien claimants were given multiple continuances and ample opportunity to properly file their exhibits but failed to do so, resulting in no due process violation and proper exclusion of exhibits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ117564 · 2026-01-20 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed

Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant David Silver, M.D., seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 31, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: the Appeals Board previously found that applicant did not sustain injury in the form of fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome and reflex sympathetic dystrophy;1 lien claimant provided treatment to applicant for those non-industrial conditions; defendant has no liability for payment for the treatment of these non-industrial body parts or conditions; and the issues of penalties are moot. She ordered that the lien was dismissed.

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration but deferred the final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3301560 · 2025-11-14 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant has filed a petition for removal from a minute order excusing a witness from trial issued on September 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The Appeals Board found no error in the WCJ's decision to excuse the witness and that the lien claimant had conducted substantial cross-examination, thus no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown to justify removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ1504028 · 2025-10-09 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as there is presently no order or decision of the WCJ as to the issue raised by lien claimant, and thus, the issue is not ripe for adjudication. Upon return the parties may raise any objections to any rulings made at trial regarding witness testimony and may thereafter seek appropriate relief if they are aggrieved.

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because there was no order or decision from the WCJ on the issue raised, making it not ripe for adjudication.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ2275429 · 2025-03-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Finally, WCAB Rule 10960 provides that "if the worker's compensation judge assigned to hear the matter and the grounds for disqualification are known," a petition for disqualification "shall be filed not more than 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.) Here, lien claimant seeks disqualification in response to actions by the WCJ that took place in 2021, several years after the ten-day period specified in WCAB Rule 10960 elapsed. Thus, the Petition for Disqualification must be dismissed.

The petition for disqualification was dismissed because it was filed after the 10-day deadline and failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish disqualification.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ745634 · 2022-09-29 · Long Beach 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 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 →

ADJ2882050 · 2021-12-08 · Long Beach 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.1 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ2882050 · 2021-06-09 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6The Petition for Disqualification was filed untimely on March 30, 2021. The basis for the petition is the allegation that this WCJ demonstrated an appearance of bias by disqualifying Lien Claimant's representative sua sponte and without prior notice to Petitioner or his client. This alleged ground for disqualification was known to Petitioner when he signed his Petition for Removal on November 19, 2020, as it comprises one of several arguments made in said petition. See Petition for Removal, supra, p. 15, lns. 23-28.] Since Petitioner was aware of the herein alleged ground for disqualification as early as November 19, 2020 (if not sooner at the Lien Trial on October 29, 2020), the Petition for Disqualification should have been filed no later than the end of November 2020 to be in compliance with the ten day filing requirement. (Cal. Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.) Instead, Petitioner waited over four months to file the Petition for Disqualification. As such, the filing of the Petition for Disqualification on March 30, 2021, was untimely and the petition should be denied accordingly.

The Petition for Disqualification was filed more than four months after the petitioner became aware of the alleged grounds, exceeding the ten-day filing requirement under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.

Official decision · page 6 →