California WCABLaw firm

Mullen & Filippi

Mullen & Filippi is named in 137 released California WCAB decisions from 2007–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (14), Permanent disability rating (13) and Apportionment (10). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Santa Rosa. The firm it meets most often is Gorman Law (5).

Decisions: 137
Years: 2007–2026
Issues disputed: 19
District offices: 23

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 81 of 102 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.

70 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

65 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 24
Santa Rosa 18
Sacramento 11
San Francisco 10
Van Nuys 10
Bakersfield 9
Redding 9
San Jose 8
Stockton 7
Riverside 5
Los Angeles 4
Salinas 4

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.

67 for the defense
45 for the applicant
19 returned for more record

Counted over 126 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.

ADJ14305554 · 2026-06-09 · Santa Rosa District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4II Section 4600(b) provides that "medical treatment that is reasonably required to cure or relieve the injured worker from the effects of the worker's injury means treatment that is based upon the guidelines adopted by the administrative director pursuant to Section 5307.27." (Lab. Code, § 4600(b).) Section 5307.27 specifies that these guidelines refer to the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS). (Lab. Code, § 5307.27(a).) The MTUS can be found in AD Rules 9792.20 through 9792.27.23 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.20-9792.27.23). The MTUS is presumptively correct on the extent and scope of treatment and is the primary source of guidance for physicians. (Lab. Code, § 4604.5(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.21(c).) However, the MTUS may be rebutted, and treatment may be warranted based on recommendations outside the MTUS in limited situations. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.21(d); see also Lab. Code, § 4604.5(d).) If a UR decision is untimely, the determination of medical necessity must be made by the WCAB based on substantial medical evidence consistent with the MTUS. (Dubon II, supra, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases at 1300.)
The Appeals Board found the December 3, 2024 UR determination was untimely under Labor Code section 4610 and former AD Rule 9792.9.1(f), requiring further development of the record with current medical evidence to determine medical necessity. The WCJ erred in dismissing the request as untimely without considering applicant's medical evidence.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ16306548 · 2026-04-27 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or removal of the Findings and Order with Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued on January 13, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as an electrician by Taft Electric Company, per the filed application dated June 16, 2022, applicant claims to have sustained cumulative injury during the period November 12, 2020 through November 12, 2021, to his neck, back, and bilateral feet; (2) the claim was denied by Gallagher Bassett Services, and no benefits have been paid; (3) the NECA/IBEW Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program on its face is a valid ADR program that has been recognized and repeatedly authorized by the Administrative Director (AD) and holds prima facie jurisdiction over applicant's claim, and applicant has not proven that it fails to meet the requirements of Labor Code section 3201.5(b) or violates his right to a fair hearing.
The WCAB lacks jurisdiction over the claim because the ADR program holds prima facie jurisdiction and the applicant did not seek review of the ADR closure, thus the WCAB cannot hear the claim except as an appeal from the ADR arbitrator's ruling.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16626738 · 2026-03-30 · San Bernardino District OfficeLiensremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, FMR Interventional Quality Pain Management, APC, seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on December 24, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that lien claimant failed its burden to prove industrial injury and to prove reasonableness and necessity of its treatment and ordered lien claimant to take nothing on its lien.
The WCJ denied the lien for failure to prove industrial injury and reasonableness/necessity of treatment, but the WCAB found the record required further review and development, and that the Compromise and Release's good-faith dispute was not binding on the lien claimant. The WCAB granted reconsideration and deferred a final decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12333976 · 2026-03-19 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In the instant case, the February 1, 2021 decision resolved the threshold issue of injury AOE/COE in both claims. As such, those findings are considered "final." Per the WCJ, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE while employed by defendant during the period June 6, 2018 through June 6, 2019 to the various body parts outlined under ADJ12812012 and ADJ12333976. (F&O, February 1, 2021.) As set forth above, the remedy for challenging a final order of the WCJ or the Appeals Board is a petition for reconsideration, and the parties have 25 days within which to file a petition from a final decision served by mail upon an address in California. Given that the injury findings were not challenged by either party, they are now final and binding. The WCJ's subsequent August 16, 2021 F&O wherein he finds no injury AOE/COE is therefore void. Due to the potential confusion caused by the conflicting February 1, 2021 and August 16, 2021 decisions, we will reiterate the original injury findings in the new F&O outlined below.
The WCAB found the February 1, 2021 injury findings final and binding, rescinded the August 16, 2021 contrary findings, and reinstated injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ16423182 · 2026-02-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.12For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the Order Imposing Sanctions and Costs Against Patrick Petronella and Pacific MRI issued by the WCJ on November 21, 2025 is RESCINDED and this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ consistent with this opinion.
The WCJ issued sanctions without holding a hearing or creating an adequate record, violating due process requirements; the WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the sanctions order.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ17943105 · 2026-01-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6injuries, applicant was not forthcoming. On June 17, 2023, applicant sought emergency treatment and requested a spine MRI, however on physical examination applicant's back was normal. Eventually, applicant self-procured lumbar spine x-rays and an MRI which were reviewed by his primary treating physician but no further action was indicated by him. Applicant also complained of left side testicle pain, however, Dr. Alchemy referred him to his primary care physician for it and per applicant he treated for it non-industrially including surgical intervention. There is simply no evidence in the record of industrial navel pain/left testicle injury. Significantly, AME, Dr. Marino only found injury to applicant's left ankle, and we are bound to make our findings based on the medical evidence. Hence, applicant did not prove any industrial injury to his neck, back, chest, shoulders nor navel pain/left testicle.
No substantial medical evidence supports industrial injury to body parts other than the left ankle; AME Dr. Marino found injury only to the left ankle.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ13002614 · 2026-01-05 · San Francisco District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative, removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 1, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant on January 11, 2020 as a rental leasing consultant, applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists (carpal tunnel syndrome), and psyche. The WCJ further held that panel 3448334 is valid; applicant's December 9, 2024 selection of Hosein Tahami, D.O. as the psyche panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) from said panel was premature; the parties April 3, 2024 agreement to continue use of Jeffrey Gould, M.D. as the psyche PQME was in effect until its termination on December 6, 2024; and the time frame during which the parties were to commence the striking process for panel number 3448334 was October 1, 2025--the date of service of the F&O.
The WCJ found the applicant's selection of Dr. Tahami premature because the striking period for the QME panel started anew on December 6, 2024, and had not expired by December 9, 2024, when the applicant selected Dr. Tahami.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11938023 · 2026-01-05 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) of September 30, 2025, and the Amended Findings and Order (Amended F&O) of October 10, 2025. In the F&O of September 30, 2025, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant while employed by defendant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right ankle, right foot, bilateral writs, tailbone/coccyx, claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE to her left ankle, bilateral knees, psyche, heart, and stroke/brain; and that applicant is entitled to panels in the fields of cardiovascular disease and psychiatry. Following an October 7, 2025 letter from applicant's attorney requesting the WCJ's decision be corrected to order panels in psychology and cardiovascular, rather than psychiatry and cardiovascular, the WCJ issued the Amended F&O. Therein, the WCJ corrected the Order to specify a panel in psychology rather than psychiatry, but did not amend Findings of Fact number three (3) to reflect the change in specialty from psychiatry to psychology.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to amend the Findings of Fact to specify the correct panels in cardiovascular disease and psychology, affirming the WCJ's decision otherwise.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14559862 · 2025-11-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the August 25, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his low back, while employed as a dishwasher on October 27, 2019. The WCJ further found that the normal workers' compensation issues were resolved by a compromise and release on July 20, 2022; that lien claimant FMR Interventional Quality Pain Management, APC provided medical care; that lien claimant Joyce Altman Interpreters provided Spanish interpreting services for the care at FMR; and that the WCJ does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the lien claims herein pending UR procedures. Based on these finding, the WCJ ordered defendant to perform retrospective UR services on the services provided by FMR and Joyce Altman within the time limits set forth in Cal. Code of Regs. § 9792.9.1.
The WCJ found injury AOE/COE based on substantive medical evidence from Dr. Marina Russman, but the WCAB panel found the record not properly developed and granted reconsideration for further review.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19327586 · 2025-10-06 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Offer of Regular, Modified, or Alternative Work" form, (Form DWC-AD 10133.35). (Cal.Code.Reg., title 8, § 10133.36 and 10133.35.) Instead, the PQME found applicant temporarily and partially disabled on a medical basis from February 1, 2023, through the present. (Exhibit 3, PQME Dr. Newmark, October 15, 2024, page 12.)
The Appeals Board found the applicant was not permanent and stationary and that further proceedings were necessary to determine work restrictions, modified work offers, and wage loss. The Board was not convinced the modified work offered was within applicant's restrictions and deferred these issues for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ16120106 · 2025-09-29 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In the present case there is a closed period of retroactive temporary disability occurring before the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME), chiropractor Michaels, evaluated the applicant on August 1, 2024. (Joint Exhibit 6.) The PQME then subsequently provided a February 1, 2025, supplemental report. (Joint Exhibit 7.)
The WCJ's finding of a closed period of temporary disability is supported by substantial evidence from PQME chiropractor Michaels' medical reports and the applicant's credible testimony, despite defendant's argument about lack of contemporaneous medical evidence.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ18058034 · 2025-09-23 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Apportionment of permanent disability must be based on causation (Lab. Code, § 4663) and may be attributed to pathology, asymptomatic prior conditions, and retroactive prophylactic work preclusions, provided there is substantial medical evidence establishing that these other factors have caused permanent disability. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687] citing Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra, at 612.) Permanent disability must be apportioned in accordance with substantial medical evidence. (Acme Steel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Borman) (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1137 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 751])
The Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. Sean Robinson, provided substantial medical evidence supporting a 60% industrial apportionment and 40% non-industrial apportionment based on detailed examination, history, and medical records, which the Appeals Board found legally valid and supported the denial of reconsideration.
Official decision · page 3 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 14.

MULLEN & FILIPPI
MULLEN & FILIPPI, LLP
Mullen & Filippi
MULLEN FILIPPI
Mullen & Filippi, LLP
Mullen Filippi
MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP
KNOPP�PISTTOLAS MULLEN & FILIPPI, LLP
Law Offices of Mullen & Filippi
LAW OFFICES OF MULLEN & FILIPPI
MULLEN FILIPPI SAN FRANCISCO
MULLEN FILIPPI WALNUT CREEK

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 →

Mullen & Filippi

Decisions

137

Years

2007–2026

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

67 for the defense

45 for the applicant

19 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.

ADJ14305554 · 2026-06-09 · Santa Rosa District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4II Section 4600(b) provides that "medical treatment that is reasonably required to cure or relieve the injured worker from the effects of the worker's injury means treatment that is based upon the guidelines adopted by the administrative director pursuant to Section 5307.27." (Lab. Code, § 4600(b).) Section 5307.27 specifies that these guidelines refer to the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS). (Lab. Code, § 5307.27(a).) The MTUS can be found in AD Rules 9792.20 through 9792.27.23 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.20-9792.27.23). The MTUS is presumptively correct on the extent and scope of treatment and is the primary source of guidance for physicians. (Lab. Code, § 4604.5(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.21(c).) However, the MTUS may be rebutted, and treatment may be warranted based on recommendations outside the MTUS in limited situations. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.21(d); see also Lab. Code, § 4604.5(d).) If a UR decision is untimely, the determination of medical necessity must be made by the WCAB based on substantial medical evidence consistent with the MTUS. (Dubon II, supra, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases at 1300.)

The Appeals Board found the December 3, 2024 UR determination was untimely under Labor Code section 4610 and former AD Rule 9792.9.1(f), requiring further development of the record with current medical evidence to determine medical necessity. The WCJ erred in dismissing the request as untimely without considering applicant's medical evidence.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ16306548 · 2026-04-27 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or removal of the Findings and Order with Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued on January 13, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as an electrician by Taft Electric Company, per the filed application dated June 16, 2022, applicant claims to have sustained cumulative injury during the period November 12, 2020 through November 12, 2021, to his neck, back, and bilateral feet; (2) the claim was denied by Gallagher Bassett Services, and no benefits have been paid; (3) the NECA/IBEW Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program on its face is a valid ADR program that has been recognized and repeatedly authorized by the Administrative Director (AD) and holds prima facie jurisdiction over applicant's claim, and applicant has not proven that it fails to meet the requirements of Labor Code section 3201.5(b) or violates his right to a fair hearing.

The WCAB lacks jurisdiction over the claim because the ADR program holds prima facie jurisdiction and the applicant did not seek review of the ADR closure, thus the WCAB cannot hear the claim except as an appeal from the ADR arbitrator's ruling.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16626738 · 2026-03-30 · San Bernardino District OfficeLiensremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, FMR Interventional Quality Pain Management, APC, seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on December 24, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that lien claimant failed its burden to prove industrial injury and to prove reasonableness and necessity of its treatment and ordered lien claimant to take nothing on its lien.

The WCJ denied the lien for failure to prove industrial injury and reasonableness/necessity of treatment, but the WCAB found the record required further review and development, and that the Compromise and Release's good-faith dispute was not binding on the lien claimant. The WCAB granted reconsideration and deferred a final decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12333976 · 2026-03-19 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6In the instant case, the February 1, 2021 decision resolved the threshold issue of injury AOE/COE in both claims. As such, those findings are considered "final." Per the WCJ, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE while employed by defendant during the period June 6, 2018 through June 6, 2019 to the various body parts outlined under ADJ12812012 and ADJ12333976. (F&O, February 1, 2021.) As set forth above, the remedy for challenging a final order of the WCJ or the Appeals Board is a petition for reconsideration, and the parties have 25 days within which to file a petition from a final decision served by mail upon an address in California. Given that the injury findings were not challenged by either party, they are now final and binding. The WCJ's subsequent August 16, 2021 F&O wherein he finds no injury AOE/COE is therefore void. Due to the potential confusion caused by the conflicting February 1, 2021 and August 16, 2021 decisions, we will reiterate the original injury findings in the new F&O outlined below.

The WCAB found the February 1, 2021 injury findings final and binding, rescinded the August 16, 2021 contrary findings, and reinstated injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ16423182 · 2026-02-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.12For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the Order Imposing Sanctions and Costs Against Patrick Petronella and Pacific MRI issued by the WCJ on November 21, 2025 is RESCINDED and this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ consistent with this opinion.

The WCJ issued sanctions without holding a hearing or creating an adequate record, violating due process requirements; the WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the sanctions order.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ17943105 · 2026-01-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6injuries, applicant was not forthcoming. On June 17, 2023, applicant sought emergency treatment and requested a spine MRI, however on physical examination applicant's back was normal. Eventually, applicant self-procured lumbar spine x-rays and an MRI which were reviewed by his primary treating physician but no further action was indicated by him. Applicant also complained of left side testicle pain, however, Dr. Alchemy referred him to his primary care physician for it and per applicant he treated for it non-industrially including surgical intervention. There is simply no evidence in the record of industrial navel pain/left testicle injury. Significantly, AME, Dr. Marino only found injury to applicant's left ankle, and we are bound to make our findings based on the medical evidence. Hence, applicant did not prove any industrial injury to his neck, back, chest, shoulders nor navel pain/left testicle.

No substantial medical evidence supports industrial injury to body parts other than the left ankle; AME Dr. Marino found injury only to the left ankle.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ13002614 · 2026-01-05 · San Francisco District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative, removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 1, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant on January 11, 2020 as a rental leasing consultant, applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists (carpal tunnel syndrome), and psyche. The WCJ further held that panel 3448334 is valid; applicant's December 9, 2024 selection of Hosein Tahami, D.O. as the psyche panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) from said panel was premature; the parties April 3, 2024 agreement to continue use of Jeffrey Gould, M.D. as the psyche PQME was in effect until its termination on December 6, 2024; and the time frame during which the parties were to commence the striking process for panel number 3448334 was October 1, 2025--the date of service of the F&O.

The WCJ found the applicant's selection of Dr. Tahami premature because the striking period for the QME panel started anew on December 6, 2024, and had not expired by December 9, 2024, when the applicant selected Dr. Tahami.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11938023 · 2026-01-05 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) of September 30, 2025, and the Amended Findings and Order (Amended F&O) of October 10, 2025. In the F&O of September 30, 2025, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant while employed by defendant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right ankle, right foot, bilateral writs, tailbone/coccyx, claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE to her left ankle, bilateral knees, psyche, heart, and stroke/brain; and that applicant is entitled to panels in the fields of cardiovascular disease and psychiatry. Following an October 7, 2025 letter from applicant's attorney requesting the WCJ's decision be corrected to order panels in psychology and cardiovascular, rather than psychiatry and cardiovascular, the WCJ issued the Amended F&O. Therein, the WCJ corrected the Order to specify a panel in psychology rather than psychiatry, but did not amend Findings of Fact number three (3) to reflect the change in specialty from psychiatry to psychology.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to amend the Findings of Fact to specify the correct panels in cardiovascular disease and psychology, affirming the WCJ's decision otherwise.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14559862 · 2025-11-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the August 25, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his low back, while employed as a dishwasher on October 27, 2019. The WCJ further found that the normal workers' compensation issues were resolved by a compromise and release on July 20, 2022; that lien claimant FMR Interventional Quality Pain Management, APC provided medical care; that lien claimant Joyce Altman Interpreters provided Spanish interpreting services for the care at FMR; and that the WCJ does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the lien claims herein pending UR procedures. Based on these finding, the WCJ ordered defendant to perform retrospective UR services on the services provided by FMR and Joyce Altman within the time limits set forth in Cal. Code of Regs. § 9792.9.1.

The WCJ found injury AOE/COE based on substantive medical evidence from Dr. Marina Russman, but the WCAB panel found the record not properly developed and granted reconsideration for further review.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19327586 · 2025-10-06 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.6Offer of Regular, Modified, or Alternative Work" form, (Form DWC-AD 10133.35). (Cal.Code.Reg., title 8, § 10133.36 and 10133.35.) Instead, the PQME found applicant temporarily and partially disabled on a medical basis from February 1, 2023, through the present. (Exhibit 3, PQME Dr. Newmark, October 15, 2024, page 12.)

The Appeals Board found the applicant was not permanent and stationary and that further proceedings were necessary to determine work restrictions, modified work offers, and wage loss. The Board was not convinced the modified work offered was within applicant's restrictions and deferred these issues for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ16120106 · 2025-09-29 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In the present case there is a closed period of retroactive temporary disability occurring before the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME), chiropractor Michaels, evaluated the applicant on August 1, 2024. (Joint Exhibit 6.) The PQME then subsequently provided a February 1, 2025, supplemental report. (Joint Exhibit 7.)

The WCJ's finding of a closed period of temporary disability is supported by substantial evidence from PQME chiropractor Michaels' medical reports and the applicant's credible testimony, despite defendant's argument about lack of contemporaneous medical evidence.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ18058034 · 2025-09-23 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Apportionment of permanent disability must be based on causation (Lab. Code, § 4663) and may be attributed to pathology, asymptomatic prior conditions, and retroactive prophylactic work preclusions, provided there is substantial medical evidence establishing that these other factors have caused permanent disability. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687] citing Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra, at 612.) Permanent disability must be apportioned in accordance with substantial medical evidence. (Acme Steel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Borman) (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1137 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 751])

The Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. Sean Robinson, provided substantial medical evidence supporting a 60% industrial apportionment and 40% non-industrial apportionment based on detailed examination, history, and medical records, which the Appeals Board found legally valid and supported the denial of reconsideration.

Official decision · page 3 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 14.

MULLEN & FILIPPI

MULLEN & FILIPPI, LLP

Mullen & Filippi

MULLEN FILIPPI

Mullen & Filippi, LLP

Mullen Filippi

MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP

KNOPP�PISTTOLAS MULLEN & FILIPPI, LLP

Law Offices of Mullen & Filippi

LAW OFFICES OF MULLEN & FILIPPI

MULLEN FILIPPI SAN FRANCISCO

MULLEN FILIPPI WALNUT CREEK