Pearlman, Brown & Wax

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 18
• Oakland 8
• Marina del Rey 6
• Santa Ana 6
• Anaheim 5
• Los Angeles 5
• Oxnard 3
• Pomona 3
• San Diego 3
• Fresno 2
• Long Beach 2
• Sacramento 2

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.

• 34 for the defense
• 28 for the applicant
• 8 returned for more record

Counted over 66 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.

• ADJ10902369 · 2026-05-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Here, the record is deficient regarding the method of calculating permanent disability considering Vigil. To rebut the CVC, an employee must present evidence explaining what impact their impairments have had upon their ADLs. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that there is effectively an absence of overlap in the impacted ADLs, or an amplified overall functional impact, the employee has rebutted the CVC. Here, PQME Dr. Watkin opined that adding applicant's impairments was appropriate because he cannot squat to spare his low back due to lower extremity joint injuries, and he cannot bend to spare his lower extremity joints due to his low back condition.

  The Appeals Board found the record deficient regarding the method of calculating permanent disability under Vigil, requiring further development of the record for PQME Dr. Watkins to conduct a complete overlap analysis of applicant's ADLs to determine whether impairments should be added or combined.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ12788201 · 2026-05-01 · Long Beach District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant CVS Health Corporation1 seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Order of January 23, 2026, wherein it was found, "Pursuant to Labor Code § 4553, the applicant was injured as a result of the serious and willful misconduct of her manager." (Finding No. 3.) In this matter, while employed on November 14, 2019 as an assistant store manager, applicant sustained admitted injury to the right forearm, right wrist, right fingers, right shoulder, right hand, and psyche. However, "the nature and extent of Applicant's injuries are all deferred pending further discovery."

  Applicant did not carry burden to show serious and willful misconduct was proximate cause of injury; manager's act of grabbing tote bag was inappropriate but not done with intent or reckless disregard likely to cause serious injury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1022470 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the decisions in ADJ3880940 and ADJ4230890, and substitute new decisions that find that CIGA and Desert have joint and several liability and order that Desert is to administer applicant's further medical treatment, and defer the issue of new and further disability in ADJ4230890. We make no other changes to any of the other decisions.

  The Board deferred the issue of new and further disability because the record was inadequate to determine whether the applicant sustained new and further disability and whether a petition to reopen was filed, and CIGA waived the issue by not raising it earlier.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ9095473 · 2025-01-22 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4On March 14, 2024, the WCJ issued her Findings of Fact, determining in relevant part that applicant and the Green Bay Packers formed a contract of hire within California's territorial jurisdiction, thus conferring California subject matter jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to sections 3600.5 and 5305. (Findings of Fact No. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision observed that applicant had testified credibly at trial to that he was physically present in California when he

  The WCJ found applicant credible that he accepted the Green Bay Packers' offer while physically in California, conferring California jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ2862836 · 2024-11-04 · Marina del Rey District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.71. Applicant's second major point out is well taken. The WCJ determined in her Findings of Fact that Defendant denied the Applicant medical treatment from 4/28/2017 to 3/9/2020. Applicant contends that the penalties awarded pursuant to Labor Code Section 5814 should reflect the same period as the finding of denial of medical treatment. After additional consideration the WCJ agrees. Therefore it is recommended that Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration be granted in part and the Findings of Fact be amended as follows:

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that the penalty period should match the period of denial of medical treatment from 4/4/2017 to 3/9/2020, and amended the Findings of Fact accordingly.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ7217330 · 2024-09-10 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the February 21, 2019 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that although applicant had been hired in California, the WCAB nevertheless lacked jurisdiction over his claim due to the presence of a forum selection clause in his contract, requiring him to bring his workers' compensation claim in Wisconsin instead of California. Applicant contests this determination, arguing that the fact of his hire in California renders the forum selection clause unenforceable and makes California an appropriate forum for his claim.

  The WCAB held that if the applicant was hired in California, the forum selection clause in his contract is unenforceable and does not bar WCAB jurisdiction. The WCJ did not make a finding on the hire location, so the case was remanded for that factual determination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8124831 · 2024-08-06 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendants Great Divide Insurance Company through Berkley Entertainment, on behalf of the Indianapolis Colts (Indianapolis Colts), and Ace American Insurance Company on behalf of the Jacksonville Jaguars (Jacksonville Jaguars) each seek reconsideration of the May 16, 2024 Opinion on Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR), wherein a panel of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from April 15, 2005 to December 1, 2010 by the Indianapolis Colts and the Jacksonville Jaguars claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head, brain, jaw, neck, teeth, back, psyche, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hips, bilateral legs, bilateral arms, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, bilateral wrists, bilateral elbows, bilateral hands, fingers, toes, and sleep disturbance. We found, in relevant part, that the WCAB has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury because applicant was hired in California.

  The WCAB found that the applicant was hired in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction, and denied the petitions challenging this finding.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10054510 · 2024-06-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7WHETHER CVS' PROVISION OF A WALKIE-TALKIE AND THE APPLICANT'S COMPLETION OF LOSS PREVENTION PAPERWORK ARE ENOUGH CONTROL TO TRANSFER RISK FROM UNIFIED TO CVS IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF A SPECIAL EMPLOYER.

  The WCJ found CVS was the special employer based on undisputed testimony that CVS controlled the applicant's work activities, including daily instructions, reporting, and discipline, beyond mere provision of equipment and paperwork.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ14300773 · 2024-06-24 · Oxnard District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8*** (c) Form 31.7 shall be used to request an additional QME panel in a different specialty. The Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues. We note that here, applicant has testified that he claims injury to body parts outside the field of orthopedic medicine, and existing medical records indicate that applicant has sought treatment for these conditions during the period of industrial exposure. Thus good cause exists for the issuance of an additional panel as requested. This issue has now occupied two trials in six months, and further delay on this issue by the parties would not ensure an expeditious resolution of this matter. Consequently, an additional QME panel will be required to fully address the claimed continuous trauma injury in the field of internal medicine. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the April 9, 2024 Findings and Order, and substitute new findings that applicant is entitled to a QME in internal medicine and all other issues are deferred.

  The WCAB found good cause for issuance of an additional QME panel in internal medicine because applicant claimed injury to internal systems during the continuous trauma period and existing medical evidence supported the need for causation opinion in that specialty. The WCJ's denial based on timeliness and procedural grounds was found erroneous and rescinded.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9095473 · 2024-05-31 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our preliminary review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration to issue an order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800 that the proceedings and testimony from the February 13, 2024 trial in this matter be transcribed and promptly filed in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS), with simultaneous notice of the filing to all active parties and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Office of the Commissioners. Thereafter, the parties shall have twenty days from receipt of the trial transcript, plus any applicable days for mailing, in which to file supplemental pleadings in EAMS.

  The WCJ denied transcript requests as no material inaccuracies in the summary were shown; the WCAB found transcript warranted due to importance of testimony and prior reliance on partial transcripts, granting reconsideration to order transcript and allow supplemental pleadings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ8124831 · 2024-05-16 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answers, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the November 18, 2019 F&O and substitute new findings that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury and that all other issues are deferred. We will then return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ.

  The WCAB found that the applicant formed a valid oral contract of hire in California by accepting employment offers while physically present in California, thus conferring subject matter jurisdiction under California law.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ1866471 · 2024-02-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In seeking reconsideration of the Decision, UEBTF does not allege new evidence that the workers' compensation appeals board (WCAB) "acquired jurisdiction" over PSI and/or Robert Olguin, Jr., and Sandra H. Burke as officers of PSI (collectively referred to as PSI) as required under section 3715, subdivision (e) (section 3715(e)). (Lab. Code, § 3715(e).) Instead, UEBTF contends that because PSI was on "actual notice" of applicant's workers' compensation claim, the WCAB was somehow authorized to issue an award, approve a compromise and release, and record liens against PSI and Roberto Olguin, Jr., as employers of applicant. We disagree for the reasons set forth in the Decision.

  The Appeals Board found that it never acquired jurisdiction over PSI because the formal service and notice requirements were not met, and therefore the prior award and stipulations involving PSI were void ab initio, leading to denial of the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• PEARLMAN, BROWN & WAX
• PEARLMAN, BROWN & WAX, LLP
• PEARLMAN BROWN & WAX
• Pearlman, Brown & Wax
• PEARLMAN BROWN
• PEARLMAN, BROWN & WAX, L.L.P.
• PEARLMAN, BROWN AND WAX
• Pearlman Brown & Wax
• Pearlman, Brown & Wax, L.L.P
• PEARLMAN, BROWN, WAX, LLP
• PEARLMAN BROWN LAW FIRM
• PEARLMAN BROWN ENCINO

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.