California WCABLaw firm

Mix & Namanny

Mix & Namanny is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (3), Apportionment (1) and Cumulative trauma (1). They were heard most often at Santa Ana.

Decisions: 8
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 1

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

Santa Ana 8

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
2 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ13153374 · 2026-04-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred
Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 12, 2021 Joint Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found no jurisdiction over applicant's specific and cumulative injury claims based upon findings that applicant was neither hired nor regularly employed in California. Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred because defendant is a California-based team that directed and controlled applicant's employment from California and that directed applicant to undergo surgery in this state for work-related injuries. We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting Labor Code2 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Of specific relevance to this case, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:
The WCJ found no jurisdiction because applicant was neither hired nor regularly employed in California, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the impact of the Gandy decision, which interprets the meaning of 'hire' in California workers' compensation law and favors a liberal construction to find California jurisdiction when the employer is California-based.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10857121 · 2024-03-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.3IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Remand of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the issuance of an Award in applicant's workers' compensation case against the New York Yankees is DEFERRED, and that this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings, including but not limited to mandatory arbitration of insurance coverage, and for final determination of all outstanding substantive issues at the trial level, with jurisdiction reserved there.
The Appeals Board deferred issuance of an Award until the insurance coverage issues are finally adjudicated and remanded the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10857121 · 2022-09-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3AWARD AWARD IS MADE in favor of the applicant and against TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY as follows: a. Future medical treatment reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury herein.
Applicant is entitled to future medical treatment for the effects of the injury; Travelers admitted coverage for part of the period and is liable for benefits.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ9069066 · 2022-08-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of January 27, 2022 wherein it was found that while employed as a professional gridiron football player applicant sustained two separate cumulative injuries. The WCJ found "The first cumulative trauma injury is for the period June 15, 1975 through November 10, 1979 while applicant was employed by the [Los Angeles] Rams and the second cumulative trauma injury is for the period April 29, 1983 through the 1984 season while applicant was employed by the Washington Federals and the Houston Gamblers." The only issue for adjudication at trial was whether applicant sustained one or two periods of cumulative injury. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of August 16, 2021 trial at p. 2.)
Both reporting physicians opined that applicant sustained two separate cumulative injuries, and there was no medical evidence to rebut these uncontroverted opinions. The WCJ's factual findings on this issue were upheld.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7041227 · 2022-07-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8However, Labor Code section 5950 provides that a party "affected by an order, decision, or award" of the WCAB may, within the prescribed time period, apply to the Court of Appeal for a writ of review "for the purpose of inquiring into and determining the lawfulness" of the order, decision, or award. "[A]ppellate review... is limited to `final' orders that determine a substantial right or liability of a party." (Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 294, 299.) An order of the WCAB is final for the purpose of seeking judicial review when it "settles, for purposes of the compensation proceeding, an issue critical to the claim for benefits, whether or not it resolves all the issues in the proceeding or represents a decision on the right to benefits." (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1075-1076, 1078.) The failure of an aggrieved party to seek judicial review of a final order of the WCAB bars later challenge to the propriety of the order or decision before either the WCAB or the Court of Appeal. (Maranian, supra, at 1076.) No party challenged the April 30, 2018 determination of the section 5412 date of injury, and that determination is now final and no longer subject to dispute. (Cal. Lab. Code § 5900, 5950.)
The date of injury was previously adjudicated as November 21, 2007, and no party challenged that final determination, making it binding and no longer subject to dispute.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ10857121 · 2026-06-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.5argument. Accordingly, it is our decision after remand to annul the 2024 Decision and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion in the applicant, supra, 111 Cal.App.5th 568, including but not limited to an evidentiary hearing on the factual issue of the applicant's "date of injury" pursuant to section 5412, so that the workers' compensation administrative law judge may determine as a matter of law whether mandatory arbitration is triggered in this case pursuant to section 5275, subdivision (a)(1), for any "date of injury" on or after January 1, 1990.
The Court of Appeal found that the WCAB erred in its prior decision by not properly determining the date of injury under section 5412, which is a factual prerequisite for mandatory arbitration under section 5275 subdivision (a)(1).
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14657845 · 2023-05-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Petitioner is correct that a formal MSC was held only in one of the two cases. The court accepts as correct that defense counsel's awareness of Exhibits D and E in his own file first arose when he said it did, specifically mid-way through the first day of trial. Both exhibits, however, were relevant to the statute contentions in both cases. The obligation of a party to respond to reasonable requests for discovery is not a passive one. Petitioner offered (and offers) no plausible explanation as to why the letters were not earlier recognized and produced when first demanded by applicant. A failure to produce relevant documents, including those predictably destined to be exhibits on fulcrum issues, may result in their exclusion from evidence. In this case, the court determined Exhibits D and E must be excluded.
The court found no plausible explanation for the late discovery and non-disclosure of exhibits D and E, and upheld their exclusion as a sanction for failure to produce relevant documents timely.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ7041227 · 2022-09-09 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the Appeals Board's attention that its decision issued on July 18, 2022 contains a clerical error in the first and second sentences of page 10, where it lists the trial date of February 14, 2022 rather than the decision date of April 22, 2022. We will correct this clerical error by virtue of this order, without granting reconsideration as such errors may be corrected without further proceedings at any time. (Toccalino v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 543, 558 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 145]; see also 2 Cal. Workers' Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, March 2018 Update) Supplemental Proceedings, § 23.74, p. 23-76.)
The Appeals Board corrected the clerical error regarding the trial date without granting reconsideration as such errors may be corrected at any time.
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.

MIX & NAMANNY
Mix & Namanny
MIX NAMANNY

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

2 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.

ADJ13153374 · 2026-04-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred

Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 12, 2021 Joint Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found no jurisdiction over applicant's specific and cumulative injury claims based upon findings that applicant was neither hired nor regularly employed in California. Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred because defendant is a California-based team that directed and controlled applicant's employment from California and that directed applicant to undergo surgery in this state for work-related injuries. We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting Labor Code2 section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Of specific relevance to this case, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:

The WCJ found no jurisdiction because applicant was neither hired nor regularly employed in California, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the impact of the Gandy decision, which interprets the meaning of 'hire' in California workers' compensation law and favors a liberal construction to find California jurisdiction when the employer is California-based.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10857121 · 2024-03-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.3IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Remand of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the issuance of an Award in applicant's workers' compensation case against the New York Yankees is DEFERRED, and that this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings, including but not limited to mandatory arbitration of insurance coverage, and for final determination of all outstanding substantive issues at the trial level, with jurisdiction reserved there.

The Appeals Board deferred issuance of an Award until the insurance coverage issues are finally adjudicated and remanded the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10857121 · 2022-09-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3AWARD AWARD IS MADE in favor of the applicant and against TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY as follows: a. Future medical treatment reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury herein.

Applicant is entitled to future medical treatment for the effects of the injury; Travelers admitted coverage for part of the period and is liable for benefits.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ9069066 · 2022-08-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of January 27, 2022 wherein it was found that while employed as a professional gridiron football player applicant sustained two separate cumulative injuries. The WCJ found "The first cumulative trauma injury is for the period June 15, 1975 through November 10, 1979 while applicant was employed by the [Los Angeles] Rams and the second cumulative trauma injury is for the period April 29, 1983 through the 1984 season while applicant was employed by the Washington Federals and the Houston Gamblers." The only issue for adjudication at trial was whether applicant sustained one or two periods of cumulative injury. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of August 16, 2021 trial at p. 2.)

Both reporting physicians opined that applicant sustained two separate cumulative injuries, and there was no medical evidence to rebut these uncontroverted opinions. The WCJ's factual findings on this issue were upheld.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7041227 · 2022-07-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8However, Labor Code section 5950 provides that a party "affected by an order, decision, or award" of the WCAB may, within the prescribed time period, apply to the Court of Appeal for a writ of review "for the purpose of inquiring into and determining the lawfulness" of the order, decision, or award. "[A]ppellate review... is limited to `final' orders that determine a substantial right or liability of a party." (Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 294, 299.) An order of the WCAB is final for the purpose of seeking judicial review when it "settles, for purposes of the compensation proceeding, an issue critical to the claim for benefits, whether or not it resolves all the issues in the proceeding or represents a decision on the right to benefits." (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1075-1076, 1078.) The failure of an aggrieved party to seek judicial review of a final order of the WCAB bars later challenge to the propriety of the order or decision before either the WCAB or the Court of Appeal. (Maranian, supra, at 1076.) No party challenged the April 30, 2018 determination of the section 5412 date of injury, and that determination is now final and no longer subject to dispute. (Cal. Lab. Code § 5900, 5950.)

The date of injury was previously adjudicated as November 21, 2007, and no party challenged that final determination, making it binding and no longer subject to dispute.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ10857121 · 2026-06-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

Determinative passage · p.5argument. Accordingly, it is our decision after remand to annul the 2024 Decision and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion in the applicant, supra, 111 Cal.App.5th 568, including but not limited to an evidentiary hearing on the factual issue of the applicant's "date of injury" pursuant to section 5412, so that the workers' compensation administrative law judge may determine as a matter of law whether mandatory arbitration is triggered in this case pursuant to section 5275, subdivision (a)(1), for any "date of injury" on or after January 1, 1990.

The Court of Appeal found that the WCAB erred in its prior decision by not properly determining the date of injury under section 5412, which is a factual prerequisite for mandatory arbitration under section 5275 subdivision (a)(1).

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14657845 · 2023-05-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Petitioner is correct that a formal MSC was held only in one of the two cases. The court accepts as correct that defense counsel's awareness of Exhibits D and E in his own file first arose when he said it did, specifically mid-way through the first day of trial. Both exhibits, however, were relevant to the statute contentions in both cases. The obligation of a party to respond to reasonable requests for discovery is not a passive one. Petitioner offered (and offers) no plausible explanation as to why the letters were not earlier recognized and produced when first demanded by applicant. A failure to produce relevant documents, including those predictably destined to be exhibits on fulcrum issues, may result in their exclusion from evidence. In this case, the court determined Exhibits D and E must be excluded.

The court found no plausible explanation for the late discovery and non-disclosure of exhibits D and E, and upheld their exclusion as a sanction for failure to produce relevant documents timely.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ7041227 · 2022-09-09 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the Appeals Board's attention that its decision issued on July 18, 2022 contains a clerical error in the first and second sentences of page 10, where it lists the trial date of February 14, 2022 rather than the decision date of April 22, 2022. We will correct this clerical error by virtue of this order, without granting reconsideration as such errors may be corrected without further proceedings at any time. (Toccalino v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 543, 558 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 145]; see also 2 Cal. Workers' Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, March 2018 Update) Supplemental Proceedings, § 23.74, p. 23-76.)

The Appeals Board corrected the clerical error regarding the trial date without granting reconsideration as such errors may be corrected at any time.

Official decision · page 1 →