Mokri, Vanis & Jones

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue3
• Liens3

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 9
• Anaheim 2
• Long Beach 1
• Los Angeles 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.

• 8 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 1 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.

• ADJ number not stated · 2024-08-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence in the existing record to find that lien claimant did rebut the presumption "affecting the burden of proof" in section 139.21(g) that her lien claims "and all underlying bills for service and claims for compensation asserted therein, [arose] from the conduct subjecting the physician, practitioner, or provider to suspension..." (Lab. Code, § 139.21(g).)

  The Appeals Board found that lien claimant rebutted the presumption under Labor Code section 139.21(g) because the fraudulent conduct for which she was convicted occurred in 2006, before she began treating workers' compensation patients in 2009, so the liens did not arise from the conduct subjecting her to suspension.

• ADJ number not stated · 2024-01-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.14CARRIERS' DISCOVERY MOTIONS The Carriers' motion to compel production by Rigler (Carriers' Exhibit SS) concerns documents related to his association with provider entities and individuals who have been charged with fraud in various State and Federal proceedings (Carriers' Exhibits BB, CC, EE, FF, GG, HH, II, JJ, KK, MM, NN, OO). In some of these matters, Rigler testified before the Grand Jury; in others he was called as a witness for the prosecution. Rigler was not charged or convicted of crimes related to these criminal proceedings. The Administrative Director did not consider any of these matters in Rigler's suspension proceeding. The conviction relied upon by the Administrative Director was for specified illegal acts in which Rigler referred patients in exchange for illegal kickbacks and bribes in association with named individuals and entities controlled by these individuals (Carlos Arguello, Ferman Iglesias, Attorney "S.O.", Providence Scheduling, Meridian Medical Resources, and MedEx Solutions).

  The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of the carriers' Motion to Compel discovery, holding that discovery is limited to the conduct for which the lien claimant was convicted and suspended, and broader discovery requests are beyond the scope of the presumption and denied.

• ADJ15899336 · 2023-12-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11 Commissioner Dodd, who was previously a member of this panel, is currently unavailable. Another panelist has been substituted in her place. 2 Reconsideration was granted of the petition for removal since the WCJ's finding on the Minutes regarding lack of jurisdiction is a threshold issue.. (See, Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658, 662 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].)

  Reconsideration was granted because the WCJ's finding on lack of jurisdiction was a threshold issue requiring further study.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2023-06-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9We believe that the Order Dismissing was issued in error. the applicant consolidation

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in issuing the Order Dismissing without proper suspension proceedings against Frontline and Paul Turley, thus rescinding the order and returning the matter for further proceedings.

• ADJ number not stated · 2023-05-05 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10382), which renders the Joinder order void ab initio, i.e., the Joinder Order

  The joinder order was issued in violation of the 10-day waiting period required by WCAB Rule 10382(d), rendering it void ab initio and violating due process rights of the lien claimant. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely and improper, but removal was granted to rescind the joinder order and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

• ADJ number not stated · 2026-01-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8III. THE RECORD IS INADEQUATE FOR A FAIR AND MEANINGFUL REVIEW OF THE ORDER

  The WCAB found the record inadequate for meaningful review of the order and that the WCJ failed to issue an opinion on decision as required by Labor Code 5313, thus granting removal and rescinding the order.

• ADJ number not stated · 2026-01-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Lien claimants also seek reconsideration of the Order of Consolidation, Designation of Master File, and Notice of Hearing (Consolidation Order) issued by Presiding WCJ Jeffrey Marrone (PWCJ Marrone) on October 24, 2025. The Consolidation Order ordered consolidation and the stay of all lien claimants' liens pursuant to Rule 10396 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396) of several hundred existing cases1 for purposes of discovery based upon "good cause shown, and pursuant to delegated authority from the Chief Judge of the Division of Workers' Compensation..." (Consolidation Order.) Good cause was found by PCWJ Marrone in "the complexity of the claims and issues" set forth in the Petition for Consolidation and Stay of Liens (Consolidation Petition) filed by defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), as well as based on review of multiple petitions for joinder and lien claimants' objections.

  The Appeals Board found the consolidation order was not a final order and dismissed the petition for reconsideration accordingly.

• ADJ number not stated · 2025-11-03 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Liaison counsel for the insurance carriers, third-party administrators, and self-insured employers (carriers) seek reconsideration or alternatively removal of the Discovery Order issued on August 1, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ ordered "all prior orders of Judge [Tammy] Homen...void" in the above-captioned matter [which was consolidated for purposes of common discovery on July 23, 2024]; ordered documents misfiled into the record of ADJ8840977 to be refiled into the record of SAU8840977 by Rod Pacheco of Pacheco & Neach, P.C. and Eric Danowitz of Mokri Vanis & Jones; ordered all documents to be filed into the record of SAU8840977 and any documents misfiled into the record of ADJ8840977 to be rejected and motions therein denied without prejudice to be reviewed once refiled into the record of SAU8840977; and, that the failure to properly file documents into the record of SAU8840977 would be "an unacceptable disruption of proceedings" and absent a showing of good cause, would be considered a basis for sanctions.

  The Discovery Order was not a final order subject to reconsideration, but removal was granted due to violation of due process and lack of fair hearing, causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm.

• ADJ2545427 · 2025-08-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) seeks reconsideration of the Order Appointing New Joint Liaison Counsel (Order) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 3, 2025.1 The WCJ ordered that SCIF and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) be appointed the new "Joint Liaison Counsel" in this consolidated proceeding and that together, counsel for SCIF and Travelers are to coordinate and conduct all discovery, serve all minutes of hearing, communicate with all other defendants regarding discovery plans as set forth in detail in California Rule of Court section 3.506 (Cal. Rule of Court, § 3.506) and in the Order.

  The petition was denied because SCIF failed to provide specific evidence supporting its claims and the legal arguments against its appointment as liaison counsel were previously rejected by the Appeals Board.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2024-11-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The insurance carriers in this consolidated matter seek reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) on August 30, 2024 (2024 Decision), which incorporated the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued by the Appeals Board on April 6, 2020 (2020 Decision). We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and although newly aggrieved by the 2024 Decision, the carriers raise no contentions not previously raised and addressed in the 2024 Decision or 2020 Decision. (See eg., 2020 Decision, pp. 22-26; 2024 Decision, pp. 6-7.)

  The petition for reconsideration was denied because the carriers raised no new contentions beyond those already addressed in prior decisions, and the Appeals Board acted timely under Labor Code section 5909.

• ADJ number not stated · 2024-11-18 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) seeks reconsideration of the Order Appointing New Liaison Counsel (Order) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 20, 2024.1 The WCJ ordered that SCIF be appointed new liaison counsel in this consolidated matter pursuant to California Rule of Court section 3.506 (Cal. Rule of Court, § 3.506), based on the remaining carriers and third party administrators (carriers) and their respective exposure on the remaining liens in this consolidated matter. The WCJ ordered that as liaison counsel, SCIF would coordinate and conduct all discovery, serve all minutes of hearing, communicate status of litigation with other carriers and the Department of Industrial Relations Anti-Fraud Unit (AFU), and create a carriers drafting committee for joint pleadings and discovery. The WCJ also ordered that the services of the liaison counsel should be rendered as economically

  The WCAB found that the WCJ erred in appointing liaison counsel without allowing carriers to meet and confer and review the list of remaining liens, thus granting reconsideration and rescinding the order.

• ADJ number not stated · 2024-03-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2To be timely, a petition for reconsideration must be filed and received by the Appeals Board within 20 days of the service of the final order, plus an additional five days if service of the decision is by any method other than personal service, including by e-mail or mail, upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) The petition for reconsideration can be filed at any district office of the WCAB. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a).) If the last day to file a petition for reconsideration falls on a weekend or a holiday on which the Workers Compensation Appeals Board is closed, the deadline moves to the next business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)

  The petition for reconsideration was timely filed and the WCJ's order violated lien claimant's due process rights due to lack of reasonable notice and fair hearing, warranting rescission and remand for further proceedings.

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.

• MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP
• Mokri, Vanis & Jones
• MOKRI VANIS & JONES
• MOKRI, VANIS & JONES
• MOKRI, VANIS & JONES, LLP, LIAISON COUNSEL
• Mokri, Vanis & Jones, LLP
• Mokri Vanis & Jones

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.