NBO Law

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue2

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 5

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.

• 2 for the applicant
• 1 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 4 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.

• ADJ9477566 · 2026-05-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the supplemental briefing, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, because we conclude that (1) section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply to the claim, but that (2) the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, a necessary factual predicate to application of those subdivisions.

  The Board concluded that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply, but the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, which is necessary to apply those subdivisions.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ9485144 · 2021-05-19 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3DISCUSSION At the outset, we observe that Zenith concedes, "CIGA may sue to obtain reimbursement for amounts it has paid for non-covered claims," citing Insurance Code section 1063.2 and Majestic Ins. Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1519 (writ den.). (See Petition for Reconsideration, p. 3:1-4.) However, the instant case involves exactly the circumstance that CIGA, by filing a petition for reimbursement, sued Zenith to obtain reimbursement for amounts CIGA paid to defend a non-covered claim. Since Zenith concedes that CIGA has the right to do so, it appears that Zenith is effectively waiving the point. (Lab. Code, § 5904.) For this reason, and for the additional reasons set forth below, we reject Zenith's contention that CIGA does not have "standing" to pursue reimbursement. Zenith also concedes that CIGA is a party in interest under WCAB Rule 10364,1 but Zenith claims that CIGA failed to "perfect" its interest by filing a lien. (Petition for Reconsideration, 4:25-27.) However, Zenith cites no legal authority that CIGA was obligated to file a lien in order to "perfect" its interest or to "perfect" its standing in this case. Further, in making this argument Zenith relies upon the factually incorrect premise that CIGA was dismissed as a party defendant in this matter.

  CIGA was never dismissed as a party defendant and has standing to seek reimbursement; Zenith conceded CIGA's right to sue for reimbursement and did not object to standing at hearing.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9078233 · 2023-10-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9The exclusion had to be clearly stated not merely open to interpretation. This is especially true in light of the fact the employer was a football team that played one-half of its games out-of-state. The Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation relies on the out-of-state provision which is stated above is unclear as to its intent. If the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation intended an exclusion for extraterritorial injuries, they should have set forth that exclusion in clear and unambiguous language. There is no language or endorsement contained in the insurance policy issued by the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation of an express limitation of extraterritorial injuries and jurisdiction. There is no express exclusion in the insurance policy for injuries in another state and filed in another state and not defending or paying benefits based on an award issued by another state having jurisdiction. In the opinion of the Arbitrator, in the absence of such express language excluding such injuries and fillings in another state and in light of the know business of the insured, the fact that the Shreveport Pirates played approximately one-half their games out-of-state, it is found by the Arbitrator that the insurance policy issued by the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation to the Shreveport Pirates covers applicant's claim in California.

  The arbitrator and Appeals Board found the insurance policy lacked clear and unambiguous exclusions for out-of-state injuries, thus coverage extended to injuries sustained out-of-state by the applicant.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ6815109 · 2022-09-21 · Santa Ana 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 the petition because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →

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.