California WCABLaw firm

Peetz Law, P.C.

Peetz Law, P.C. is named in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes are AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Los Angeles. The firm it meets most often is Fellman & Associates (1).

Decisions: 5
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 1
District offices: 4

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 of 5 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.

AOE/COE1

Who they face

Fellman & Associates1

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

Van Nuys 2
Los Angeles 1
Marina del Rey 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.

3 for the defense
2 for the applicant

Counted over 4 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.

ADJ18302905 · 2025-07-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 15, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) on July 10, 2023, while employed as a ground operations worker by JetBlue Airways Corporation at Los Angeles Airport (LAX); that applicant's injury was not barred by the going and coming rule based on the special risk exception to that rule; and that all other pending issues, including parts of body injured, remain bifurcated and off-calendar. The WCJ ordered this matter off calendar for further discovery.
The WCJ's findings that the injury was AOE/COE and not barred by the going and coming rule under the special risk exception are supported by substantial evidence, including applicant's routine exposure to the risks of navigating World Way at LAX, which is a high-traffic environment shared by employees and the public, and the Appeals Board defers to the WCJ's factual findings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10254909 · 2025-10-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.42. Removal Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ ordered applicant to appear at an evaluation. The trial judge issued this order without creating a record or explaining the need for the order and thus, the order violates the parties' right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case. Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab.
The WCJ's order compelling attendance at evaluation was issued without creating a record or explaining the need, violating due process and causing irreparable harm, thus removal was proper.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ19370874 · 2024-11-18 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached
Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant seeks to set aside the OACR, but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding his allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate applicant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.
No evidence was admitted into the record regarding applicant's allegations, so the petition is premature and must be dismissed.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14527846 · 2024-06-28 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10254909 · 2021-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We 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 review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration from a non-final order, treat the petition as a Petition for Removal, and dismiss the Petition for Removal as untimely.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it sought reconsideration of a non-final order denying change of venue, which is not appealable. The petition for removal was dismissed as untimely because it was filed after the 25-day deadline.
Official decision · page 1 →

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.

PEETZ LAW
PEETZ LAW, P.C.
Peetz Law, P.C.
Peetz Law

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the defense

2 for the applicant

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ18302905 · 2025-07-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 15, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) on July 10, 2023, while employed as a ground operations worker by JetBlue Airways Corporation at Los Angeles Airport (LAX); that applicant's injury was not barred by the going and coming rule based on the special risk exception to that rule; and that all other pending issues, including parts of body injured, remain bifurcated and off-calendar. The WCJ ordered this matter off calendar for further discovery.

The WCJ's findings that the injury was AOE/COE and not barred by the going and coming rule under the special risk exception are supported by substantial evidence, including applicant's routine exposure to the risks of navigating World Way at LAX, which is a high-traffic environment shared by employees and the public, and the Appeals Board defers to the WCJ's factual findings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10254909 · 2025-10-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.42. Removal Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ ordered applicant to appear at an evaluation. The trial judge issued this order without creating a record or explaining the need for the order and thus, the order violates the parties' right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case. Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab.

The WCJ's order compelling attendance at evaluation was issued without creating a record or explaining the need, violating due process and causing irreparable harm, thus removal was proper.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ19370874 · 2024-11-18 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached

Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant seeks to set aside the OACR, but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding his allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate applicant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.

No evidence was admitted into the record regarding applicant's allegations, so the petition is premature and must be dismissed.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14527846 · 2024-06-28 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10254909 · 2021-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We 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 review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration from a non-final order, treat the petition as a Petition for Removal, and dismiss the Petition for Removal as untimely.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it sought reconsideration of a non-final order denying change of venue, which is not appealable. The petition for removal was dismissed as untimely because it was filed after the 25-day deadline.

Official decision · page 1 →