California WCABLaw firm
Morgan & Leahy LLP
Morgan & Leahy LLP is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2), AOE/COE (1) and Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Glauber Berenson Vego (1).
- Decisions
- 10
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 5
- District offices
- 6
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 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.
6 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 10 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.
- ADJ19034450 · 2026-01-30 · Anaheim District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5In this case, applicant contends defendant unreasonably delayed payment of the settlement proceeds, such that a Labor Code section 5814 penalty is warranted. The WCJ "... found that Defendants are not subject to Labor Code § 5814 penalties as the delay in dispersing the settlement proceeds was not unreasonable and the delay was promptly corrected." (Report, December 1, 2025, p. 4, § 2). We agree but for the reasons discussed below.
The delay in payment was found not to be unreasonable or intentional, but rather a reasonable human error promptly corrected, with no evidence of institutional neglect or significant impact on applicant, thus no penalties were warranted.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ12013613 · 2025-12-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11INJURY AOE/COE; CAUSATION; THE MEDICAL REPORTING OF PQME OLGA VOROSHILOVSKY, M.D. AND CONSULT MARVIN PIETRUSZKA, M.D.
The Appeals Board found the medical opinion of PQME Dr. Olga Voroshilovsky, who reviewed all evidence including extensive medical records, to be substantial evidence supporting no industrial injury causation, while rejecting the consult Dr. Marvin Pietruszka's opinion for failing to consider the full medical record and relying on inaccurate history from the widow.
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ12663627 · 2025-03-18 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.12The reporting of Dr. Kupfer, Dr. Esch, and Dr. Abitbol are found all to be substantial medical evidence and this WCJ gives great weight to their findings. Based on the reporting from applicant's PTP, who clearly indicates that her low back is affecting her activities of daily living, the reporting from Dr. Abitbol, the spinal surgeon, as well as the QME, Dr. Esch, it is clear that applicant's treatment of conservative care is ineffective to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury. Applicant has participated in conservative care and exhausted such option for her lumbar spine. Therefore, this WCJ now finds that applicant is entitled to further medical treatment in the form of an anterior lumber interbody fusion L5-S1 as requested by the treating physician Dr. Abitbol and all other treatment delineated on his RFA dated March 18, 2024. This WCJ finds this treatment to be reasonable and necessary and should be authorized and scheduled as quickly as possible.
The WCJ found the applicant entitled to further medical treatment including lumbar surgery based on substantial medical evidence from the treating physician, QME, and other medical reports showing conservative treatment was exhausted and surgery was reasonable and necessary. The WCAB panel adopted and incorporated the WCJ's findings and denied defendant's petition for reconsideration.
Official decision · page 12 → - ADJ17708321 · 2024-06-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded
Determinative passage · p.2In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ notes that the proper statute of limitations is one year from the date of injury. (Opinion on Decision at pp. 1-2.) However, the WCJ did not specify what the date of injury was in this case. The WCJ writes in the Opinion on Decision that, "The date of injury for the purposes of the statute of limitations is defined by Labor Code § 5411 and 5412" (Opinion on Decision at p. 2), but the WCJ does not determine or explain which of these code sections is applicable to this case. The WCJ states that "if the employee suffers a specific injury but the effects of the injury are not felt until sometime after the injury, there is conflicting case law as to whether the limitations period commences on the date of injury, or at the point when the employee manifests symptoms and understands the relationship between the disability and the employment." The WCJ found that this "latent injury theory" was applicable to this case, but did not cite to any of the competing case law, including any case law supporting the theory. While the WCJ apparently held that the date of injury was the date where "there is a consequence from the injury allowing a claim for compensation along with knowledge of the connection to employment" (Opinion on Decision at p. 3), there is no analysis of when this took place in the current case.
The WCJ failed to specify the date of injury and did not analyze which Labor Code section applied, nor did the WCJ provide a clear basis for the statute of limitations decision as required by Labor Code section 5313 and Hamilton. The WCAB found the WCJ's decision unclear and remanded for further proceedings to clarify these issues.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ14083898 · 2024-04-02 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The court issued a Findings & Award/Opinion on Decision on January 14, 2024, which was served January 18, 2024. It was found that Defendant had to comply with their own UR authorization.
A timely Utilization Review approved the requested home relocation, and the court has no jurisdiction to disturb a timely UR approval. Defendant cannot disavow its own UR approval and must comply with it.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ504245 · 2022-11-28 · Marina del Rey District OfficeSJDB voucherdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The two vouchers here at issue for injuries dated January 29, 2007 and March 3, 2007 were issued on July 17, 2017. (Joint Findings of Fact; Defendant's Exhibit B, Letter from Albertson's attaching two vouchers.) Per section 4658.5(d), these two vouchers expired on July 17, 2019.
The vouchers expired two years after issuance on July 17, 2019, and unused funds were returned after expiration, so no reimbursement was allowed.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ13794622 · 2025-10-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a).) Here, the April 7, 2025 order dismissing applicant's claim was served upon a party in
Applicant filed the petition for reconsideration within the extended time allowed for service outside California, making it timely; defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ18696994 · 2024-06-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The petition was denied because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ12956073 · 2021-07-23 · Van Nuys 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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 and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12801649 · 2021-06-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2With respect to defendant's third Petition, we will deny the Petition. Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The WCAB found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the Petition for Removal.
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.
- MORGAN & LEAHY
- MORGAN & LEAHY, LLP
- Morgan & Leahy LLP
- Morgan Leahy Law
- Morgan & Leahy
- MORGAN LEAHY
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.