California WCABLaw firm

Mangosing Law Group

Mangosing Law Group is named in 17 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Statute of limitations (5), Apportionment (2) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Black and Rose (1).

Decisions: 17
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 4

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 14 of 14 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.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

10 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

7 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

Oakland 13
Van Nuys 2
Anaheim 1
Santa Ana 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.

8 for the applicant
4 for the defense
4 returned for more record

Counted over 16 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.

ADJ8290184 · 2026-03-20 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5We find there is no basis upon which to conclude that the applicant could have known about the existence of an SIBTF claim by 2012. Applicant's uncontroverted testimony was he was not aware of filing a claim against the SIBTF until 2018 or 2019. After he became aware of this, he contacted his current attorney and filed a claim on July 11, 2019. Thus, applicant did not know about SIBTF until 2018 or 2019, and once he did, a claim was filed. There is no evidence of any delay in pursuing his claim against SIBTF. In his Report, the WCJ states:
Applicant did not know and could not reasonably be deemed to know about the SIBTF claim until 2018 or 2019, and filed the claim promptly after gaining knowledge, making the application timely under Talcott and Adams precedent.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10479461 · 2025-01-27 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8The court, however, found that applicant was erroneously denied SIBTF benefits under section 4751. (Bookout, supra, 62 Cal. App. 3d at p. 228.) It explained that the referee incorrectly instructed the rating specialist to apportion 34.5% for the preexisting nonindustrial heart disability (based on a standard rating of 30%) from the total subsequent injury disability of 65% (based on a standard rating of 60%), rather than utilizing the total disability for the subsequent injury "standing alone and without regard to or adjustment for the occupation or age of the employee" as required by section 4751.12 (Ibid.; § 4751, subd. (b).) It interpreted the language of this requirement as excluding apportionment. Thus, the court held that the permanent disability attributable to applicant's subsequent injury for the purpose of meeting the 35% threshold requirement under the statute was the standard rating of 60%. (Bookout, supra, 62 Cal. App. 3d at p. 228; § 4751, subd. (b).)
The Appeals Board followed the holding in Bookout that apportionment is excluded when determining the 35% threshold for SIBTF benefits under Labor Code section 4751, rejecting SIBTF's argument to apply apportionment.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ11303362 · 2025-01-21 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred
Determinative passage · p.13Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration and, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&O and substitute findings that defer the issues of whether applicant had a pre- existing permanent disability affecting an extremity and a subsequent injury which affected the opposite and corresponding extremity, with the subsequent permanent disability equaling to 5% or more of total disability when considered alone and without regard to occupation or age; whether applicant's subsequent permanent disability equals 35% or more of his total disability when considered alone and without regard to occupation or age; whether the medical reports in evidence constitute substantial medical evidence; and the level of permanent disability; and we will return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The record requires further development on this issue, so the decision defers it for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 13 →
ADJ8035633 · 2024-10-14 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11But defendant cites no evidence, and we are aware of none, to suggest that applicant was aware of a permanent partial disability resulting from a work injury to the brain prior to the cumulative injury of April 27, 2001 through January 5, 2011 until at least 2020, when he learned he could file the petition for subsequent injuries benefits. (Report, p. 7.) Notably, the WCJ deemed applicant's testimony that he did not learn of his claim for subsequent injuries benefits until he attended the 2020 Super Bowl credible, and we accord this determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witness's demeanor at trial. (Report, pp. 6-7; Garza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)
Applicant did not know and could not reasonably be deemed to know of substantial likelihood of entitlement to subsequent injuries benefits within five years from the date of injury; no proof of service of critical documents on applicant; WCJ's credibility finding on applicant's testimony was accorded great weight; thus petition was timely filed.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ916498 · 2023-10-13 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded
Determinative passage · p.4We disagree. The Compromise and Release is not a finding on the issue of permanent disability. Paragraph 9 of the Compromise and Release specifically states that, "The parties wish to settle these matters to avoid the costs, hazards and delays of further litigation, and agree that a serious dispute exists as to the following issues (initial only those that apply)." (Joint Exhibit 101, Order Approving Compromise and Release and Compromise and Release, § 9.) Permanent disability is initialed under paragraph 9. (Ibid.) A Compromise and Release is a compromise; it is not a finding of disability.
The WCAB found that the 2008 Compromise and Release is not a finding of permanent disability and that the WCJ failed to properly analyze applicant's knowledge of SIBTF's probable liability and eligibility thresholds, thus the timeliness issue requires further proceedings.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ2649256 · 2023-08-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.64 While UEBTF makes this argument for policy reasons, the undersigned finds the analysis to be similar. 5 The period within which proceedings may be commenced for the collection of the benefits provided by Article 2 (commencing with Section 4600) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 4650), or both, of Chapter 2 of Part 2 is one year from any of the following: (a)The date of injury. (b)The expiration of any period covered by payment under Article 3 (commencing with Section 4650) of Chapter 2 of Part 2. (c)The last date on which any benefits provided for in Article 2 (commencing with Section 4600) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 were furnished.
Applicant did not know and could not reasonably have known of SIBTF liability within five years of injury date; applicant filed claim within reasonable time after learning of probable liability; petition for reconsideration denying time bar was properly denied.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11310005 · 2023-07-20 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 27, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that based on the reports of pain medicine qualified medical examiner (QME) James B. Shaw, M.D., applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE), to her head, back, neck, and shoulder; and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her injury claim.
Dr. Shaw's medical opinions were found not to be substantial evidence because they were based on an inadequate medical history and lack of review of treating physicians' records, leading to rescission of the prior Findings and Order and remand for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7161613 · 2021-11-24 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Here, we are unable to ascertain the basis for the WCJ's decision with the existing record and as such, we rescind the July 8, 2021 Findings and Order and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
The Appeals Board found the record insufficient to determine the basis for the WCJ's decision barring the claim and noted the need for findings on permanent disability and substantial likelihood of entitlement to SIBTF benefits. The Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings to address the limitations issue properly.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ3929187 · 2026-06-30 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the December 16, 2021 Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to head, neck, spine, back, shoulders, hips, upper extremities, lower extremities, hearing loss, chest, gastritis, dyspepsia, internal systems, headaches, and post-traumatic head syndrome, but that his claim for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits is barred by the statute of limitations.
The WCAB panel granted reconsideration to review the entire record and allow further proceedings on settlement, without ruling on the merits of the statute of limitations bar.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6788916 · 2025-10-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, petitioners seek intervention from the Appeals Board with respect to scheduling of hearings. As stated above, scheduling of hearings has been delegated to the district offices by way of the WCAB Rules. Moreover, petitioners seek a remedy based on the pleadings that they have submitted, which is not permitted under the WCAB Rules. Moreover, no record has been created that we would enable us to meaningfully address the merits of their arguments.
Scheduling of hearings is delegated to district offices by WCAB Rules; petitioners sought a remedy not permitted under the rules and failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ3525949 · 2024-01-09 · Oakland District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Following their participation in a commissioners' settlement conference set at our request, applicant and defendants resolved applicant's claim against defendants by Compromise and Release. The Compromise and Release was filed on January 3, 2024.
The Board concluded the settlement amount was adequate and in the applicant's best interest, and the attorneys' fee was reasonable.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7016841 · 2023-12-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either (1) "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case..." (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410, 413]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661, 665]); or (2) determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650, 650-651, 655-656], emphasis added.) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180; Kramer, supra, 82 Cal.App.3d at p. 45.) Here, our September 8, 2023 rescinded the WCJ's June 13, 2023 finding that applicant's claim for SIBTF benefits was untimely, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. We did not issue new findings or orders from which reconsideration may be taken. As such, SIBTF's petition is premature.
The Board held that the petition for reconsideration was premature because no new final order or decision was issued from which reconsideration could be taken, as the prior order rescinded the WCJ's untimeliness finding and returned the matter for further proceedings without new findings.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

MANGOSING LAW GROUP
MANGOSING LAW

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 →

Mangosing Law Group

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

What they litigate

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

How the appealed decisions came out

8 for the applicant

4 for the defense

4 returned for more record

Counted over 16 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.

ADJ8290184 · 2026-03-20 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5We find there is no basis upon which to conclude that the applicant could have known about the existence of an SIBTF claim by 2012. Applicant's uncontroverted testimony was he was not aware of filing a claim against the SIBTF until 2018 or 2019. After he became aware of this, he contacted his current attorney and filed a claim on July 11, 2019. Thus, applicant did not know about SIBTF until 2018 or 2019, and once he did, a claim was filed. There is no evidence of any delay in pursuing his claim against SIBTF. In his Report, the WCJ states:

Applicant did not know and could not reasonably be deemed to know about the SIBTF claim until 2018 or 2019, and filed the claim promptly after gaining knowledge, making the application timely under Talcott and Adams precedent.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10479461 · 2025-01-27 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8The court, however, found that applicant was erroneously denied SIBTF benefits under section 4751. (Bookout, supra, 62 Cal. App. 3d at p. 228.) It explained that the referee incorrectly instructed the rating specialist to apportion 34.5% for the preexisting nonindustrial heart disability (based on a standard rating of 30%) from the total subsequent injury disability of 65% (based on a standard rating of 60%), rather than utilizing the total disability for the subsequent injury "standing alone and without regard to or adjustment for the occupation or age of the employee" as required by section 4751.12 (Ibid.; § 4751, subd. (b).) It interpreted the language of this requirement as excluding apportionment. Thus, the court held that the permanent disability attributable to applicant's subsequent injury for the purpose of meeting the 35% threshold requirement under the statute was the standard rating of 60%. (Bookout, supra, 62 Cal. App. 3d at p. 228; § 4751, subd. (b).)

The Appeals Board followed the holding in Bookout that apportionment is excluded when determining the 35% threshold for SIBTF benefits under Labor Code section 4751, rejecting SIBTF's argument to apply apportionment.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ11303362 · 2025-01-21 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

Determinative passage · p.13Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration and, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&O and substitute findings that defer the issues of whether applicant had a pre- existing permanent disability affecting an extremity and a subsequent injury which affected the opposite and corresponding extremity, with the subsequent permanent disability equaling to 5% or more of total disability when considered alone and without regard to occupation or age; whether applicant's subsequent permanent disability equals 35% or more of his total disability when considered alone and without regard to occupation or age; whether the medical reports in evidence constitute substantial medical evidence; and the level of permanent disability; and we will return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The record requires further development on this issue, so the decision defers it for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 13 →

ADJ8035633 · 2024-10-14 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.11But defendant cites no evidence, and we are aware of none, to suggest that applicant was aware of a permanent partial disability resulting from a work injury to the brain prior to the cumulative injury of April 27, 2001 through January 5, 2011 until at least 2020, when he learned he could file the petition for subsequent injuries benefits. (Report, p. 7.) Notably, the WCJ deemed applicant's testimony that he did not learn of his claim for subsequent injuries benefits until he attended the 2020 Super Bowl credible, and we accord this determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witness's demeanor at trial. (Report, pp. 6-7; Garza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)

Applicant did not know and could not reasonably be deemed to know of substantial likelihood of entitlement to subsequent injuries benefits within five years from the date of injury; no proof of service of critical documents on applicant; WCJ's credibility finding on applicant's testimony was accorded great weight; thus petition was timely filed.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ916498 · 2023-10-13 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

Determinative passage · p.4We disagree. The Compromise and Release is not a finding on the issue of permanent disability. Paragraph 9 of the Compromise and Release specifically states that, "The parties wish to settle these matters to avoid the costs, hazards and delays of further litigation, and agree that a serious dispute exists as to the following issues (initial only those that apply)." (Joint Exhibit 101, Order Approving Compromise and Release and Compromise and Release, § 9.) Permanent disability is initialed under paragraph 9. (Ibid.) A Compromise and Release is a compromise; it is not a finding of disability.

The WCAB found that the 2008 Compromise and Release is not a finding of permanent disability and that the WCJ failed to properly analyze applicant's knowledge of SIBTF's probable liability and eligibility thresholds, thus the timeliness issue requires further proceedings.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ2649256 · 2023-08-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.64 While UEBTF makes this argument for policy reasons, the undersigned finds the analysis to be similar. 5 The period within which proceedings may be commenced for the collection of the benefits provided by Article 2 (commencing with Section 4600) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 4650), or both, of Chapter 2 of Part 2 is one year from any of the following: (a)The date of injury. (b)The expiration of any period covered by payment under Article 3 (commencing with Section 4650) of Chapter 2 of Part 2. (c)The last date on which any benefits provided for in Article 2 (commencing with Section 4600) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 were furnished.

Applicant did not know and could not reasonably have known of SIBTF liability within five years of injury date; applicant filed claim within reasonable time after learning of probable liability; petition for reconsideration denying time bar was properly denied.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11310005 · 2023-07-20 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 27, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that based on the reports of pain medicine qualified medical examiner (QME) James B. Shaw, M.D., applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE), to her head, back, neck, and shoulder; and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her injury claim.

Dr. Shaw's medical opinions were found not to be substantial evidence because they were based on an inadequate medical history and lack of review of treating physicians' records, leading to rescission of the prior Findings and Order and remand for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7161613 · 2021-11-24 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Here, we are unable to ascertain the basis for the WCJ's decision with the existing record and as such, we rescind the July 8, 2021 Findings and Order and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

The Appeals Board found the record insufficient to determine the basis for the WCJ's decision barring the claim and noted the need for findings on permanent disability and substantial likelihood of entitlement to SIBTF benefits. The Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings to address the limitations issue properly.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ3929187 · 2026-06-30 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the December 16, 2021 Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to head, neck, spine, back, shoulders, hips, upper extremities, lower extremities, hearing loss, chest, gastritis, dyspepsia, internal systems, headaches, and post-traumatic head syndrome, but that his claim for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits is barred by the statute of limitations.

The WCAB panel granted reconsideration to review the entire record and allow further proceedings on settlement, without ruling on the merits of the statute of limitations bar.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6788916 · 2025-10-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, petitioners seek intervention from the Appeals Board with respect to scheduling of hearings. As stated above, scheduling of hearings has been delegated to the district offices by way of the WCAB Rules. Moreover, petitioners seek a remedy based on the pleadings that they have submitted, which is not permitted under the WCAB Rules. Moreover, no record has been created that we would enable us to meaningfully address the merits of their arguments.

Scheduling of hearings is delegated to district offices by WCAB Rules; petitioners sought a remedy not permitted under the rules and failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ3525949 · 2024-01-09 · Oakland District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Following their participation in a commissioners' settlement conference set at our request, applicant and defendants resolved applicant's claim against defendants by Compromise and Release. The Compromise and Release was filed on January 3, 2024.

The Board concluded the settlement amount was adequate and in the applicant's best interest, and the attorneys' fee was reasonable.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7016841 · 2023-12-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either (1) "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case..." (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410, 413]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661, 665]); or (2) determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650, 650-651, 655-656], emphasis added.) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180; Kramer, supra, 82 Cal.App.3d at p. 45.) Here, our September 8, 2023 rescinded the WCJ's June 13, 2023 finding that applicant's claim for SIBTF benefits was untimely, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. We did not issue new findings or orders from which reconsideration may be taken. As such, SIBTF's petition is premature.

The Board held that the petition for reconsideration was premature because no new final order or decision was issued from which reconsideration could be taken, as the prior order rescinded the WCJ's untimeliness finding and returned the matter for further proceedings without new findings.

Official decision · page 2 →