Odjaghian Law Group

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 11
• Los Angeles 2
• Long Beach 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.

• 11 for the applicant
• 3 for the defense
• 2 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.

• ADJ13261327 · 2025-09-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment (AOE/COE).

  The applicant was found to be providing a benefit to the employer at the time of injury, meeting the condition under Labor Code section 3600(a)(2). The injury occurred during a lunch meeting to discuss personnel issues, which was reasonably expected and beneficial to the employer.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10266237 · 2025-08-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6II. We first address the sufficiency of the medical-legal evidence. The WCJ has determined that applicant sustained two industrial injuries, a specific injury of September 10, 2015, and a cumulative injury from September 10, 2005 to September 10, 2015. In both instances, the WCJ has based his findings on applicant's credible testimony and the reporting of AME Dr. Bertoldi. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 2.) The burden of proving industrial injury rests with the applicant. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705; LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644, 650 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253].) Where the question of industrial causation is beyond the bounds of ordinary knowledge, proof in the form of expert medical evidence is required. (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Willson) (1924) 195 Cal.174, 184 [11 IAC 277]; Ins. Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kemp) (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 911 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913].) In order to constitute substantial evidence on industrial causation, a reporting physician must state his or her opinion in terms of reasonable medical probability. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660]; LaTourette, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 650.) In his report of January 20, 2021,3 Dr.

  The WCJ and WCAB found the AME Dr. Bertoldi's report to be substantial medical evidence based on reasonable medical probability, supported by review of treating neurosurgeon and pathologist opinions, and applicant's credible testimony.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11998537 · 2023-08-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4DISCUSSION Regarding the issue of the inpatient medical treatment, as noted above, Dr. Sangnil, stated that applicant's dizziness, impaired memory, vestibular dysfunction, anxiety, blurry vision, gait imbalance, migraine headaches, and insomnia had constituted unsafe living conditions and that applicant already had multiple falls with several leading to head traumas. (App. Exh. 19, p. 3.) We also note that in her Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that Dr. Sangnil's discussion of applicant's condition was consistent with "applicant's presentation, mood, affect, and testimony at trial" and that "applicant credibly testified he previously had significant benefit from inpatient residential programs" indicating that "if not for the earlier treatment, his present functioning level would be considerably worse." (F&O, p. 5, Opinion on Decision.) It is well established that a WCJ's opinions regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 505]; Sheffield Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Perez) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 868 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 358].) Thus, we agree with the WCJ's conclusion that "applicant has met the burden to prove in- patient neuro rehab is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury." (F&O, p.

  The WCJ found that applicant met his burden to prove in-patient neuro rehab is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury, supported by medical opinions and applicant's credible testimony.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11845925 · 2022-11-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order re: Ongoing Treatment at Casa Colina issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 8, 2021. The WCJ found that applicant, while employed on August 16, 2018, as an electrician, sustained an admitted industrial injury to his head, both knees, upper back, lower back, and fingers of his left hand, and claimed injury to other body parts. The WCJ found defendant may not unilaterally cease to provide applicant's inpatient care services at Casa Colina Transitional Living Center (Casa Colina), until there is a change in circumstance that would warrant a new utilization review determination. The WCJ ordered that defendant continue to provide the services until there is a change in circumstances.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that under Patterson, once treatment is authorized, it must continue until a change in circumstances warrants a new utilization review determination. Defendant failed to show such a change.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11670075 · 2022-09-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9On March 16, 2022, the WCJ issued his F&A, finding that applicant sustained injury to the "head, neck, brain, shoulders, back, bilateral legs, right thigh, right femur, internal system, nervous system, psyche, pulmonary, eyes, and others deferred." (F&A, at p. 1.) The WCJ further found that applicant's injuries were "not barred by any affirmative defense." (Id.) The WCJ awarded reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment and ongoing medical treatment, with all other issues deferred. (Id. at pp. 1§ 2.) According to the Electronic Adjudication Management System ("EAMS"), the F&A was filed at 9:22 a.m.

  The WCJ found that the applicant sustained work-related injuries not barred by exclusions for self-inflicted injury or suicide, supported by medical records and testimony. The WCAB affirmed this finding, rejecting defendant's arguments and petitions.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ11449146 · 2022-08-29 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.14. The issue of entitlement to medical treatment is deferred.

  The medical evidence from both applicant and defendant was found not to be substantial; the WCJ's order for treatment was vacated in part and remanded for further medical development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11091794 · 2022-07-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3This WCJ accepts that the proofs of service regarding the UR denials, with the exception of one, do appear to have been mailed to applicant's counsel. However, that does not meet the requirement of Labor Code section 4610.... [A] UR decision not only must be timely made; it must be timely communicated. A UR decision that is not timely communicated is of no use and defeats the legislative intent of a UR "process that balances the interests of speed and accuracy, emphasizing the quick resolution of treatment requests... " (Sandhagen, supra, 44 Cal. 4th at p. 241.). Thus, section 4610... imposes further mandatory time requirements for communicating a UR decision. These time limits run from the date the UR decision is made, even if the UR decision is made in less than the five days allowed...

  The WCJ and the panel found that the Utilization Review (UR) determinations of Dr. Patterson's May 17, 2021 RFA were untimely because the UR decisions were not timely communicated to the applicant or the applicant's primary treating physician as required by Labor Code section 4610, supported by evidence including emails and letters from applicant's counsel showing lack of receipt of UR denials.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11092501 · 2022-03-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 30, 2019. The WCJ found that applicant, while employed on October 13, 2017, as a production line worker, sustained an admitted industrial injury to her head and brain. The WCJ also found that defendant's improper service of the Utilization Review (UR) determination renders it invalid, and the determination of medical necessity for the treatment may be made by the Appeals Board. The WCJ found defendant is liable for continuing applicant's outpatient physical rehabilitation, consisting of transitional living center day treatment, transportation, and interpreter services, until they are no longer reasonably required pursuant to Labor Code section 4600.1

  The WCJ and WCAB found that defendant's UR determination was untimely and invalid, giving the WCAB jurisdiction to determine medical necessity. Substantial medical evidence, including Dr. Patterson's reports and team conference notes, supported the need for continuing outpatient rehabilitation until no longer reasonably required.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10239329 · 2021-05-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. Defendant, Zurich American Insurance Company, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on September 17, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, is in need of ongoing in-patient supportive care to cure and relieve him from the effects of his industrial injury. Defendant contends in its petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant is entitled in-patient supportive care. Applicant filed an answer to the petition for reconsideration, contending that it should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which he recommended that defendant's petition for reconsideration be denied. Subsequently, at our request the parties participated in a commissioners' settlement conference and agreed to resolve applicant's claims by compromise and release. Applicant's adult daughter, Andrea the applicant, was appointed Guardian ad Litem and Trustee (GAL) on May 14, 2021. The GAL signed the Compromise and Release, in behalf of applicant. The Compromise and Release was filed on May 24, 2021.

  The WCJ found entitlement to ongoing in-patient supportive care, but the parties resolved the claim by compromise and release, which the WCAB approved as adequate and in the applicant's best interest.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9856812 · 2021-02-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On December 3, 2020, the Defendant filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated December 3, 2020, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Findings of Fact & Award dated November 13, 2020. The Defendant contends that the undersigned WCJ erred in relying on Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 910 (Appeals Board significant panel decision) in finding that the Applicant was entitled to further medical treatment in the form of continued interdisciplinary post-acute residential rehabilitation at the Casa Colina's Transitional Living Center absent any change in circumstances. In addition, the Defendant contends that the Applicant's continued stay at the center is not supportable as reasonable and necessary medical treatment.

  The WCAB found no evidence of a change in applicant's condition or circumstances to justify cessation of treatment and relied on Patterson to uphold the need for continued treatment at Casa Colina's Transitional Living Center.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11409207 · 2026-04-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter and served on August 12, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical spine, head, and traumatic brain injury, and claims to have sustained injury to his lumbar spine, thoracic spine, eyes, nose, circulatory system, heart, nervous system, psyche, reproductive system, and endocrine system.

  The WCJ's decision was rescinded and the matter was returned to the WCJ for consideration of the parties' settlement agreement and further proceedings, without ruling on the merits of the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11409207 · 2024-11-12 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter and served on August 12, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical spine, head, and traumatic brain injury, and claims to have sustained injury to his lumbar spine, thoracic spine, eyes, nose, circulatory system, heart, nervous system, psyche, reproductive system, and endocrine system.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ applied an incorrect standard regarding ongoing inpatient care and that the petition for reconsideration should be granted to review the merits further.

  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.