California WCABLaw firm

Misa Stefen Koller Ward, LLP

Misa Stefen Koller Ward, LLP is named in 14 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Apportionment (3), Jurisdiction / venue (3) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Marina del Rey. The firm it meets most often is Berkowitz & Cohen (2).

Decisions: 14
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 7
District offices: 5

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 of 9 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

16 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

Van Nuys 6
Marina del Rey 3
San Diego 3
Los Angeles 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.

9 for the applicant
6 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 14 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.

ADJ9595324 · 2025-04-07 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6However, because we agree with the WCJ's analysis with respect to the alleged violations of section 4062.3, and because we further agree that the violations merit the issuance of a replacement panel of QMEs, we will otherwise affirm and, for purposes of clarity, restate the WCJ's January 7, 2025 Findings and Order.
The violations of section 4062.3 merited issuance of a replacement panel of QMEs, so the WCJ's findings and order for replacement were affirmed and restated.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ15865183 · 2024-10-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.4(Lab. Code, § 4656(c)(2).) Where separate injuries result in concurrent periods of temporary disability, the 104-week
The Appeals Board found that the 104-week limitation periods run concurrently for separate injuries causing concurrent temporary disability, but findings of fact must be made in each case, and the cases must be consolidated for hearing. Since only one case was submitted and no findings were made for the other case, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ9082985 · 2024-05-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Order (F&O) issued on May 30, 2019, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from July 1, 1965 to July 1, 1975 claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his head, vision, jaw, neck, back, shoulders, elbows, wrist, hands, fingers, hips, knees, ankles, feet, toes, neuro/psyche, internal, cardiovascular, heart, hypertension, sleep, and injuries resulting in his death. The WCJ found that applicant's employment contracts were entered into outside the State of California, and that California does not have a legitimate and substantial interest in applicant's claim sufficient to compel defendant to adjudicate the claim under the laws of California.
The WCJ found no California contract of hire and insufficient contacts between the injury and California to justify jurisdiction, supported by substantial evidence including applicant's deposition and medical reports.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11244503 · 2024-04-08 · San Diego District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4However, if the Board finds the Petition cites grounds upon which the decision can be appealed, including the incorporation of Labor Code Section 5952(c), this WCJ maintains that the Petition for Reconsideration should be denied as petitioner has failed to establish that the Findings and Award was not justified or it was unreasonable. Furthermore, this WCJ finds that the reporting of Dr. Jeffrey Bernicker rose to the level of substantial medical evidence such that any determination based on these reports are valid findings.
The WCJ found Dr. Bernicker's medical opinion to be substantial evidence and gave it great weight over Dr. Inman's conflicting opinion, resulting in a 35% permanent disability rating for the applicant.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12304191 · 2022-07-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On March 7, 2022, defendant newly aggrieved timely sought reconsideration of our February 25, 2022 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration. Therein, we granted applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the August 31, 2021 Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) and, based on the WCJ's Report and Recommendation which we adopted and incorporated as part of our decision, we found that defendant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding non-industrial apportionment and that the injury herein caused 80% permanent disability. We further noted that we had failed to act on applicant's petition within 60 days of its filing on September 20, 2021, through no fault of applicant. Therefore, considering that the Appeals Board's failure to act on the petition was in error, we found that our time to act was tolled
Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding non-industrial apportionment; the Appeals Board found 80% permanent disability caused by the injury and affirmed the prior decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12304191 · 2022-02-25 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4A. That the PQME reporting on nonindustrial apportionment did not constitute substantial evidence.
Dr. Hyman's medical reports were found not to be substantial evidence due to incorrect date of injury and failure to explain apportionment; defendants failed to prove nonindustrial causation; applicant entitled to unapportioned 80% permanent disability award.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11802545 · 2021-10-01 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Petitioner contends that it was error for this WCJ to rely on the June 4, 2020 report from the Primary Treating Physician (PTP), Dr. Sam Tabibian (Exhibit 18) because it is not substantial medical evidence. Petitioner claims that the doctor's opinions were based on a false / inaccurate history, that his opinions are internally inconsistent and ambiguous. Petitioner also claims that the report is not substantial because the doctor did not discuss LC§ 5412 and because the doctor did not directly review all of the Applicant's past medical records.
The WCJ found the Primary Treating Physician's (PTP) report by Dr. Sam Tabibian to be substantial medical evidence despite alleged errors and inconsistencies, relying on the treating physician's direct treatment and examination of the applicant.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ19077549 · 2025-04-15 · Van Nuys 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14628621 · 2025-01-03 · San Diego District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3The issue of whether Cosmic Concepts had coverage at the time of injury proceeded to arbitration and on October 4, 2024, the WCA issued a F&A determining that at the time of applicant's injury, "Cosmic Concepts was not legally insured in the State of California for workers' compensation coverage." (F&A, p. 3.) The WCA further explained that since applicant had been working for "90 days at the time of incident," he was to be considered a permanent employee and therefore did not qualify for extraterritorial coverage under the policy or based upon current case or statutory law as those exceptions applied only to temporary workers. (F&A and OOD, pp. 3, 7- 10; Report, p. 5.)
The WCA found that Cosmic Concepts did not have insurance by a duly licensed and authorized workers' compensation carrier in California at the time of injury, and the Appeals Board agreed, rejecting defendants' argument that extraterritorial coverage applied to permanent employees.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ15911190 · 2024-11-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Since the WCJ did not hold a hearing or admit any evidence into the record on the issue of dismissal of applicant's cases, we do not have a sufficient record to consider the issue in the first instance. Moreover, as a matter of due process, applicant is entitled to a hearing.
The WCAB found the dismissal order lacked a sufficient record and due process, granting reconsideration and returning the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ15911190 · 2024-07-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Here, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, we will deny the petition to the extent it seeks to disqualify the WCJs.
The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under the applicable law and rules to establish grounds for removal or disqualification. The applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and the petition was untimely and unverified.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ13364587 · 2022-03-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.54. The Compromise and Release filed and approved on October 16, 2020 is limited to the settlement of the claim against the Southern Maryland Blue Crabs and Chesapeake Employers Insurance Company.
The WCAB found that the C&R is limited to the claim against Southern Maryland Blue Crabs and Chesapeake Employers Insurance Company only, based on the contract language and lack of mutual consent to settle all claims against all defendants.
Official decision · page 5 →

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.

Misa Stefen Koller Ward, LLP
MISA STEFEN KOLLER WARD
MISA STEFEN KOLLER WARD, LLP
MISA, STEFEN, KOLLER, WARD, LLP AKA EWORDSOLUTIONS
Misa, Stefen, Koller and Ward
MISA, STEFEN, KOLLER AND WARD
MISA, STEFEN, KOLLER & WARD
Misa, Stefen, Koller & Ward
Misa Stefen Koller Ward

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 →

Misa Stefen Koller Ward, LLP

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

9 for the applicant

6 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Decisions

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

ADJ9595324 · 2025-04-07 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6However, because we agree with the WCJ's analysis with respect to the alleged violations of section 4062.3, and because we further agree that the violations merit the issuance of a replacement panel of QMEs, we will otherwise affirm and, for purposes of clarity, restate the WCJ's January 7, 2025 Findings and Order.

The violations of section 4062.3 merited issuance of a replacement panel of QMEs, so the WCJ's findings and order for replacement were affirmed and restated.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ15865183 · 2024-10-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.4(Lab. Code, § 4656(c)(2).) Where separate injuries result in concurrent periods of temporary disability, the 104-week

The Appeals Board found that the 104-week limitation periods run concurrently for separate injuries causing concurrent temporary disability, but findings of fact must be made in each case, and the cases must be consolidated for hearing. Since only one case was submitted and no findings were made for the other case, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ9082985 · 2024-05-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Order (F&O) issued on May 30, 2019, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from July 1, 1965 to July 1, 1975 claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his head, vision, jaw, neck, back, shoulders, elbows, wrist, hands, fingers, hips, knees, ankles, feet, toes, neuro/psyche, internal, cardiovascular, heart, hypertension, sleep, and injuries resulting in his death. The WCJ found that applicant's employment contracts were entered into outside the State of California, and that California does not have a legitimate and substantial interest in applicant's claim sufficient to compel defendant to adjudicate the claim under the laws of California.

The WCJ found no California contract of hire and insufficient contacts between the injury and California to justify jurisdiction, supported by substantial evidence including applicant's deposition and medical reports.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11244503 · 2024-04-08 · San Diego District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4However, if the Board finds the Petition cites grounds upon which the decision can be appealed, including the incorporation of Labor Code Section 5952(c), this WCJ maintains that the Petition for Reconsideration should be denied as petitioner has failed to establish that the Findings and Award was not justified or it was unreasonable. Furthermore, this WCJ finds that the reporting of Dr. Jeffrey Bernicker rose to the level of substantial medical evidence such that any determination based on these reports are valid findings.

The WCJ found Dr. Bernicker's medical opinion to be substantial evidence and gave it great weight over Dr. Inman's conflicting opinion, resulting in a 35% permanent disability rating for the applicant.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12304191 · 2022-07-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On March 7, 2022, defendant newly aggrieved timely sought reconsideration of our February 25, 2022 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration. Therein, we granted applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the August 31, 2021 Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) and, based on the WCJ's Report and Recommendation which we adopted and incorporated as part of our decision, we found that defendant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding non-industrial apportionment and that the injury herein caused 80% permanent disability. We further noted that we had failed to act on applicant's petition within 60 days of its filing on September 20, 2021, through no fault of applicant. Therefore, considering that the Appeals Board's failure to act on the petition was in error, we found that our time to act was tolled

Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding non-industrial apportionment; the Appeals Board found 80% permanent disability caused by the injury and affirmed the prior decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12304191 · 2022-02-25 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4A. That the PQME reporting on nonindustrial apportionment did not constitute substantial evidence.

Dr. Hyman's medical reports were found not to be substantial evidence due to incorrect date of injury and failure to explain apportionment; defendants failed to prove nonindustrial causation; applicant entitled to unapportioned 80% permanent disability award.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11802545 · 2021-10-01 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Petitioner contends that it was error for this WCJ to rely on the June 4, 2020 report from the Primary Treating Physician (PTP), Dr. Sam Tabibian (Exhibit 18) because it is not substantial medical evidence. Petitioner claims that the doctor's opinions were based on a false / inaccurate history, that his opinions are internally inconsistent and ambiguous. Petitioner also claims that the report is not substantial because the doctor did not discuss LC§ 5412 and because the doctor did not directly review all of the Applicant's past medical records.

The WCJ found the Primary Treating Physician's (PTP) report by Dr. Sam Tabibian to be substantial medical evidence despite alleged errors and inconsistencies, relying on the treating physician's direct treatment and examination of the applicant.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ19077549 · 2025-04-15 · Van Nuys 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14628621 · 2025-01-03 · San Diego District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3The issue of whether Cosmic Concepts had coverage at the time of injury proceeded to arbitration and on October 4, 2024, the WCA issued a F&A determining that at the time of applicant's injury, "Cosmic Concepts was not legally insured in the State of California for workers' compensation coverage." (F&A, p. 3.) The WCA further explained that since applicant had been working for "90 days at the time of incident," he was to be considered a permanent employee and therefore did not qualify for extraterritorial coverage under the policy or based upon current case or statutory law as those exceptions applied only to temporary workers. (F&A and OOD, pp. 3, 7- 10; Report, p. 5.)

The WCA found that Cosmic Concepts did not have insurance by a duly licensed and authorized workers' compensation carrier in California at the time of injury, and the Appeals Board agreed, rejecting defendants' argument that extraterritorial coverage applied to permanent employees.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ15911190 · 2024-11-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Since the WCJ did not hold a hearing or admit any evidence into the record on the issue of dismissal of applicant's cases, we do not have a sufficient record to consider the issue in the first instance. Moreover, as a matter of due process, applicant is entitled to a hearing.

The WCAB found the dismissal order lacked a sufficient record and due process, granting reconsideration and returning the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ15911190 · 2024-07-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Here, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, we will deny the petition to the extent it seeks to disqualify the WCJs.

The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under the applicable law and rules to establish grounds for removal or disqualification. The applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and the petition was untimely and unverified.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ13364587 · 2022-03-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.54. The Compromise and Release filed and approved on October 16, 2020 is limited to the settlement of the claim against the Southern Maryland Blue Crabs and Chesapeake Employers Insurance Company.

The WCAB found that the C&R is limited to the claim against Southern Maryland Blue Crabs and Chesapeake Employers Insurance Company only, based on the contract language and lack of mutual consent to settle all claims against all defendants.

Official decision · page 5 →

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.

Misa Stefen Koller Ward, LLP

MISA STEFEN KOLLER WARD

MISA STEFEN KOLLER WARD, LLP

MISA, STEFEN, KOLLER, WARD, LLP AKA EWORDSOLUTIONS

Misa, Stefen, Koller and Ward

MISA, STEFEN, KOLLER AND WARD

MISA, STEFEN, KOLLER & WARD

Misa, Stefen, Koller & Ward

Misa Stefen Koller Ward