Ozurovich, Schwartz & Brown

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Long Beach 11
• Marina del Rey 5
• Anaheim 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.

• 7 for the applicant
• 6 for the defense
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 18 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.

• ADJ9298733 · 2026-04-06 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.91) Applicant met its burden to show that the Defendant did not pay the Award timely and properly; 2) No finding could be made at this juncture whether the Defendant should be sanctioned per the allegations in the Petition for Sanctions until the record was developed; and 3) The Defendant's Petition for Sanctions could not be heard at this trial as sanctions against the Applicant were not raised in the Pretrial Conference Statement and the Petition was not filed until the day of the trial.17

  The WCJ found that the defendant did not pay the Award timely and properly based on the plain language of the Compromise & Release and the Joint Findings of Fact and Orders, which the WCAB panel adopted and upheld on reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ17050134 · 2025-08-26 · Marina del Rey District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 14, 2025. The WCJ found that applicant failed to prove that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a and that the issues of affirmative defenses and attorney fees are moot. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his Petition for Increased Benefits for Discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

  The WCJ found that the applicant failed to prove the defendant violated Labor Code section 132a, but the parties later settled the issues by compromise and release, leading to remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18473989 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, administered by The Hanover Insurance Group seeks removal based on the October 29, 2024 Finding and Order (served by the WCJ on November 13, 2024) Re: Additional QME Panel, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the medical record in this case requires further development in the form of an additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in the medical specialty of psychiatry. For the reasons given herein, we will grant the petition and return the case to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking the necessary evidence to support the WCJ's order for an additional QME panel in psychiatry, thus granting removal and rescinding the order.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15544152 · 2025-05-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On December 4, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&O, determining in relevant part that applicant was the initial physical aggressor, barring compensation. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) The WCJ observed that the testimonial and video evidence supported the conclusion that applicant was the first to physically touch the other party to the altercation, and that a reasonable person would perceive that contact to be a real and present threat of bodily harm. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 2.)

  The WCJ found that applicant was the initial physical aggressor by physically touching and moving the camera, which a reasonable person would perceive as a real and present threat of bodily harm, barring compensation under Labor Code section 3600(a)(7).

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ17084700 · 2025-02-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In this case, the employer has not met the burden of proof necessary to establish that it

  The employer failed to prove that modified or alternative work was both available and offered to the applicant, thus the applicant was entitled to temporary disability benefits for the period claimed.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9983378 · 2024-09-09 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings & Award (F&A) issued on May 18, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained a catastrophic industrial injury to his lumbar spine, thoracic spine, cervical spine, right shoulder, and psyche which resulted in applicant sustaining 85% permanent partial disability with a corresponding life pension.

  Applicant failed to present substantial medical evidence to rebut the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) or the Combined Values Chart (CVC). Vocational expert's report improperly included medical opinions, which is not substantial evidence. The Board found insufficient description of work restrictions and lack of medical evidence on CVC rebuttal, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3802146 · 2024-05-03 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Award" (F&A) issued on February 11, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was not 100% permanently totally disabled and instead awarded 80% permanent partial disability with a corresponding life pension pursuant to the stipulations of the parties.

  The WCJ's award of 80% permanent partial disability after apportionment was rescinded because the matter requires further development of the record, particularly regarding medical evidence on work restrictions and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16681782 · 2024-02-20 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Therefore, defendant has not met its burden that its personnel actions were implemented in a manner that was lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith. The rules regarding the duration of the accommodation, the consideration of remote work, and evidence as to why some accommodations were granted are unclear and show that management personnel may not have followed proper procedures. (See City of Fresno v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (Romero), supra, 65 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1052.)

  Defendant failed to prove that its personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith due to unclear rules and procedural errors, so the good faith personnel action defense does not bar the claim.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ325769 · 2024-02-02 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the WCJ erred in relying upon her July 16, 2013 denial of applicant's claim of cumulative trauma through November 18, 2001 (ADJ8143323) to reject amendment of the specific injuries of May 18, 1999 (ADJ325769) and January 11, 2001 (ADJ812096) to cumulative trauma claims. Therefore, we will rescind the WCJ's decisions and return the latter two cases to the trial level for further proceedings and new decisions by the WCJ.

  The WCJ erred in relying on a barred cumulative trauma claim to deny permanent disability benefits for two specific injuries; the cases involve different body parts and dates of injury, so the barred claim does not preclude compensation in these cases.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12116378 · 2023-09-28 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her left eye while employed as a cashier on March 27, 2019, by R & D Westwing, Inc., insured by Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America. The issue of injury to all other body parts is deferred. 2. All other issues are deferred.

  Applicant was injured on employer's premises during her shift; a co-worker disclosed her presence to a caller, making employment a contributing cause; injury to left eye found AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ2537816 · 2022-01-13 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In order to constitute substantial evidence on the issue of apportionment, the reporting physician must delineate the approximate percentages of permanent disability due to the direct results of the injury and the approximate percentage of permanent disability due to other factors and the physician must explain the nature of the other factors, how and why those factors are causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, and how and why those factors are responsible for the percentage of disability assigned by the physician. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).)

  The Board found no substantial evidence for apportionment to non-industrial factors because the physicians did not adequately explain how pre-existing conditions caused permanent disability at the time of evaluation, thus increasing permanent disability to 63%.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12380286 · 2021-09-03 · Long Beach District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.7FINDINGS OF FACT 1. applicant, age 54, while employed during the period from May 6, 2015, through May 6, 2016, at Los Angeles, California, as a legal assistant (occupation group number 112), by ROBERT HALF LEGAL, sustained injury, arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, to her neck and hands; the issue of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, to applicant's psyche and/or to her lungs is deferred.

  No medical evidence submitted at trial regarding lungs or psyche; issues deferred for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →

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.

• OZUROVICH & SCHWARTZ
• OZUROVICH, SCHWARTZ & BROWN
• OZUROVICH, SCHWARTZ & BROWN, APC
• Ozurovich, Schwartz & Brown
• Ozurovich & Schwartz
• OZUROVICH, SCHWARTZ & BROWN LAW
• OZUROVICH SCHWARTZ

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.