California WCABLaw firm

Occupational Injury Law Center

Occupational Injury Law Center is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2), Temporary disability (2) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Stockton, then Lodi. The firm it meets most often is Michael Sullivan & Associates (2).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 8 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.

Who they face

1 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

Stockton 8
Lodi 1
Oakland 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.

5 for the defense
4 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

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.

ADJ15031118 · 2025-05-16 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in case number ADJ15031118.
The WCJ excluded medical evidence from Dr. Shaw and Dr. Jones improperly, limiting the evidentiary record and barring meaningful review; the Appeals Board found the exclusion of Dr. Shaw's QME reports improper under Labor Code section 4062.3 and related statutes, requiring further proceedings to develop the record and properly consider the cumulative trauma injury claim.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12475830 · 2023-09-11 · Stockton District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration to further study the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant.1 This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.
The WCJ found good cause to reinstate the claim due to the applicant's credible testimony about being ignored by prior counsel, the impact of the Covid pandemic on medical appointments, and the invalidity of the dismissal order containing self-destruct clauses. The WCAB panel affirmed this finding.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13283932 · 2023-03-21 · Stockton District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2On January 26, 2022, orthopedic AME Dr. Garland evaluated applicant. Dr. Garland examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record. The doctor diagnosed applicant as having anterolisthesis (vertebral slippage/displacement) of L5 on S1 with radicular pain in her left leg. He said that applicant's condition had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and he assigned 8% whole person impairment. ((Joint Exh. 100, Dr. Garland, January 26, 2022, pp. 8 § 9.) Regarding apportionment, Dr. Garland stated:
Dr. Garland's apportionment opinion lacked explanation of the nature and causation of non-industrial factors, thus not constituting substantial evidence; the Board found 14% permanent disability without apportionment to non-industrial factors.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ16048168 · 2023-02-13 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Expedited Hearing was held October 19, 2022, with issues of, inter alia, temporary disability from the day of PQME evaluation on August 8, 2022, need for further medical treatment, and applicant's request to change treating physician.
PQME Sclafani's report was found to be substantial evidence supporting temporary partial disability beginning August 8, 2022, and there was no evidence of a subsequent injury being the sole cause of disability.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11069868 · 2021-11-12 · Stockton District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3In this case, it appears that a second panel is warranted based on the record in order to promote an expeditious resolution of this case. Based on Dr. Nijjar's deposition, including the exhibits attached to it, a rheumatology panel will provide additional evidence on the causation of CRPS. Therefore, we will amend the Findings and Order to order the parties to request two panels from the medical unit.
The record, including Dr. Nijjar's deposition, supports the need for a replacement orthopedic panel and an additional rheumatology panel to further develop the medical record regarding causation of CRPS.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ6877517 · 2021-08-04 · Stockton District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Request for an authorization for an orthopedic surgical consult that was made by Dr. Annu Navani, M.D. with a report written by physician's assistant Corey Tremblay specifically requesting an orthopedic surgical consultation for the right shoulder. There were other items requested at the same time, but we're only dealing with the authorization request for the orthopedic surgical consult for the right shoulder which was non-certified by the Utilization Review company Genex on December 3, 2019.
The IMR determination overturned the Utilization Review denial and required the defendant to provide the surgical consultation, so the applicant was not aggrieved by the WCJ's Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9930606 · 2021-06-28 · Stockton District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Lien Claim of Prior Attorney. Occupational Injury Law Center
The Stipulation and Award and/or Order included language 'in full satisfaction of attorney fee lien,' which resolved prior counsel's entitlement to fees. No further work was performed by prior counsel after dismissal, and the document was unambiguous and signed by prior counsel.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ17765957 · 2023-08-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In her Petition for Reconsideration, applicant claims that the settlement was improper because she could not understand it and she also references another injury, and that she should
The petition was dismissed because the applicant's claims were premature and unsupported by evidence or testimony in the record, and the matter should be considered as a Petition to Set Aside the Stipulations with development of the record.
Official decision · page 4 →

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.

OCCUPATIONAL INJURY LAW CENTER
Occupational Injury Law Center

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 →

Occupational Injury Law Center

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

4 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

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.

ADJ15031118 · 2025-05-16 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in case number ADJ15031118.

The WCJ excluded medical evidence from Dr. Shaw and Dr. Jones improperly, limiting the evidentiary record and barring meaningful review; the Appeals Board found the exclusion of Dr. Shaw's QME reports improper under Labor Code section 4062.3 and related statutes, requiring further proceedings to develop the record and properly consider the cumulative trauma injury claim.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12475830 · 2023-09-11 · Stockton District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration to further study the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant.1 This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.

The WCJ found good cause to reinstate the claim due to the applicant's credible testimony about being ignored by prior counsel, the impact of the Covid pandemic on medical appointments, and the invalidity of the dismissal order containing self-destruct clauses. The WCAB panel affirmed this finding.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13283932 · 2023-03-21 · Stockton District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2On January 26, 2022, orthopedic AME Dr. Garland evaluated applicant. Dr. Garland examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record. The doctor diagnosed applicant as having anterolisthesis (vertebral slippage/displacement) of L5 on S1 with radicular pain in her left leg. He said that applicant's condition had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and he assigned 8% whole person impairment. ((Joint Exh. 100, Dr. Garland, January 26, 2022, pp. 8 § 9.) Regarding apportionment, Dr. Garland stated:

Dr. Garland's apportionment opinion lacked explanation of the nature and causation of non-industrial factors, thus not constituting substantial evidence; the Board found 14% permanent disability without apportionment to non-industrial factors.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ16048168 · 2023-02-13 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Expedited Hearing was held October 19, 2022, with issues of, inter alia, temporary disability from the day of PQME evaluation on August 8, 2022, need for further medical treatment, and applicant's request to change treating physician.

PQME Sclafani's report was found to be substantial evidence supporting temporary partial disability beginning August 8, 2022, and there was no evidence of a subsequent injury being the sole cause of disability.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11069868 · 2021-11-12 · Stockton District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3In this case, it appears that a second panel is warranted based on the record in order to promote an expeditious resolution of this case. Based on Dr. Nijjar's deposition, including the exhibits attached to it, a rheumatology panel will provide additional evidence on the causation of CRPS. Therefore, we will amend the Findings and Order to order the parties to request two panels from the medical unit.

The record, including Dr. Nijjar's deposition, supports the need for a replacement orthopedic panel and an additional rheumatology panel to further develop the medical record regarding causation of CRPS.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ6877517 · 2021-08-04 · Stockton District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Request for an authorization for an orthopedic surgical consult that was made by Dr. Annu Navani, M.D. with a report written by physician's assistant Corey Tremblay specifically requesting an orthopedic surgical consultation for the right shoulder. There were other items requested at the same time, but we're only dealing with the authorization request for the orthopedic surgical consult for the right shoulder which was non-certified by the Utilization Review company Genex on December 3, 2019.

The IMR determination overturned the Utilization Review denial and required the defendant to provide the surgical consultation, so the applicant was not aggrieved by the WCJ's Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9930606 · 2021-06-28 · Stockton District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Lien Claim of Prior Attorney. Occupational Injury Law Center

The Stipulation and Award and/or Order included language 'in full satisfaction of attorney fee lien,' which resolved prior counsel's entitlement to fees. No further work was performed by prior counsel after dismissal, and the document was unambiguous and signed by prior counsel.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ17765957 · 2023-08-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In her Petition for Reconsideration, applicant claims that the settlement was improper because she could not understand it and she also references another injury, and that she should

The petition was dismissed because the applicant's claims were premature and unsupported by evidence or testimony in the record, and the matter should be considered as a Petition to Set Aside the Stipulations with development of the record.

Official decision · page 4 →