California WCABLaw firm

Rose, Klein & Marias

Rose, Klein & Marias is named in 34 released California WCAB decisions from 2006–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (14), Permanent disability rating (5) and Jurisdiction / venue (2). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Oxnard. The firm it meets most often is Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen (2).

Decisions: 34
Years: 2006–2026
Issues disputed: 10
District offices: 12

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 23 of 26 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.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

28 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

10 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 13
Oxnard 5
Anaheim 3
Los Angeles 2
Riverside 2
San Bernardino 2
San Diego 2
Bakersfield 1
Marina del Rey 1
Pomona 1
Santa Ana 1
Santa Rosa 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.

14 for the defense
11 returned for more record
10 for the applicant

Counted over 33 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.

ADJ18656111 · 2026-06-26 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on March 3, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that defendant did not prove that decedent's death was proximately caused by intoxication. Defendant asserts that the WCJ erred because the evidence supports the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner ("QME") that intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury.
The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that decedent's intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury, due to lack of concrete evidence and reliance on speculative assumptions in the QME report.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16929084 · 2025-12-22 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ found that applicant was not an employee because he was not receiving wages irrespective of profits.2 The parties fail to acknowledge that the section goes on to specifically address general partners, without limiting language, that have not elected to be excluded from coverage.3 Whether applicant was a working member of a partnership or a general partner, he would be automatically covered by the division regardless. Section 3352 (a)(17)(A) specifically provides that general partners may be excluded from the definition of employee, and thereby excluded from coverage, only when they execute "a written waiver of his or her rights under this chapter stating under penalty of perjury that the person is a qualifying general partner." (Lab. Code, § 3352(a)(17))4 Neither party appears to dispute that applicant is a general partner that remained a practicing attorney, thereby meeting the definition of employee either under the general definition or the explicit inclusion of subsection f of Section 3351. Thus, this issue is not an employment issue, but a coverage issue.
The WCJ found applicant was not an employee under section 3351(f) because he did not receive wages irrespective of profits, but the Appeals Board found that as a general partner who did not waive coverage, he is covered by the division. The matter involves insurance coverage and must be submitted to arbitration before further proceedings.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ17834281 · 2025-11-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The undersigned issued a Finding & Order (F&O) in which it was found that Applicant's injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment because it fell within the "going and coming" rule. applicant (Petitioner) timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration. Petitioner contends that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact and that the findings of fact do not support the order. The undersigned recommends that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied.
The injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment because it was barred by the going and coming rule, with no applicable exceptions met by the applicant.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ7835304 · 2025-10-17 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3The issue presented on reconsideration is whether applicant may be paid compensation for a psychiatric injury in this matter pursuant to section 3208.3(d), which provides in relevant part:
The Board corrected the WCJ's erroneous finding that applicant did not sustain a psychiatric injury AOE/COE but affirmed that applicant was not employed for at least six months and the injury was not caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition, thus no compensation under section 3208.3(d).
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11202213 · 2025-05-09 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.5The conclusions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Wood with respect to causation of injury do not constitute substantial medical evidence without further explanation. The medical evaluators do not question applicant's reports of stress and repetitive use of the upper extremities at work, yet they fail to persuasively explain how and why these factors played no role in applicant's injuries to the circulatory system and upper extremities. As explained by the California Supreme Court, industrial factors need only be a contributing cause of injury, however slight. (See South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 299 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489].)
The medical evaluators' opinions on causation lacked sufficient explanation and reasoning to constitute substantial medical evidence, particularly regarding the role of work-related stress and repetitive use in the injuries. The Board found the need for further development of the record to obtain substantial evidence on causation.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14362966 · 2025-02-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the November 12, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an Energy Technician from November 1, 2020 to November 29, 2020, sustained industrial injury in the form of COVID-19.
The WCAB found that the WCJ's original decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the QME's medical opinion was limited to a single service call and did not address the totality of the evidence; the record was incomplete and required further development to determine industrial causation of COVID-19.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ1993155 · 2024-12-09 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In verified pleadings, applicant stated - in essence - that she did not receive the notice of intent to dismiss the cases, which raises procedural due process concerns as to whether the required notice was received by applicant. It is one of the basic tenets of jurisprudence that a party must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before their case is dismissed. (See, e.g., San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].) Thus, the failure to serve applicant with the notice of intent is not only a violation of WCAB Rules; it constitutes a fundamental violation of applicant's due process rights, rendering the resulting July 30, 2019, Order dismissing cases ADJ1993155 and ADJ984342 void on its face.
The WCAB found the dismissal orders void ab initio due to lack of proper service and due process violations, thus it has jurisdiction to reopen the cases.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ10192708 · 2024-12-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.5Here it is unclear from our preliminary review of the existing record as to whether there was a stipulation to the maximum temporary disability indemnity rate by the parties, particularly as it pertains to the payment of indemnity pursuant to section 4661.5. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petitions, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.
The WCAB found it unclear whether there was a stipulation to the maximum temporary disability indemnity rate and granted reconsideration to further study the issue.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14201376 · 2023-12-18 · Oxnard District OfficeTemporary disabilitydeferred
Determinative passage · p.2We are not persuaded that the record supports the allowance of a credit for overpayment of TD. The WCJ relies on the December 15, 2020 pain management panel qualified medical examination report of Lawrence Miller, M.D., to allow the credit. Dr. Miller found applicant to have reached maximum medical improvement. (Dr. Miller's 12/15/20 report, at p. 13, defendant's Exhibit D.) However, the signature page of Dr. Miller's December 15, 2020 report is undated, the attached proof of service is undated and unsigned, and what appears to be a facsimile stamp at the bottom of each page of the report states "12/31/2020 12:00:00 AM." Thus, there does not appear to be evidence that the report was transmitted prior to December 31, 2020. In addition, EDD began to pay benefits on January 8, 2021 (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE) 8/16/23, at p 3:9-11), presumably based on the certification of her treating physician.
The issue of credit for overpayment of temporary disability was deferred for further development of the record due to questions about the timeliness of the Panel QME report and communications with EDD.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ9044260 · 2023-12-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2We will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ's decision to defer the issue of injury to the cervical spine. The cervical spine was not placed at issue in the Minutes of Hearing of the August 17, 2023 trial, where applicant claimed injury to the "cardiovascular system, headaches, sleep, bilateral hips, left knee and left leg" in addition to the admitted lumbar spine. It was thus error to find injury to a body part that was not placed at issue at trial. As the Court of Appeal stated in Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 711 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230], "`An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. [Citation.]' (Fortich v. Workers' Comp.
The cervical spine injury was not placed at issue at trial, and no substantial medical evidence of industrial causation was presented, requiring deferral of this issue.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ14362966 · 2023-11-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that Applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of COVID-19; and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his injury claim.
The WCJ's original finding that the applicant did not sustain a COVID-19 injury AOE/COE was rescinded because the QME's opinion was found speculative and lacking scientific basis, warranting further proceedings including deposition of the QME.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9823497 · 2023-08-04 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, State of California, Department of Transportation, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Awards issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on September 29, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's admitted industrial injuries to multiple parts of his body during a cumulative period ending February 10, 2014 (ADJ9823497) and on May 26, 2016 (ADJ10495068) caused permanent partial disability of 85%. The WCJ also found that the industrial injury on February 18, 2009 (ADJ7667324) caused permanent partial disability of 14%.
The WCAB rescinded the prior Findings and Awards and remanded for consideration of the Compromise and Release, thus not ruling on the merits of the permanent partial disability ratings.
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.

ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS
ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS LLP
ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS
LAW OFFICES OF ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS
ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS LLP
Rose, Klein & Marias
Herbert I. Galperson, Esq., Rose, Klein & Marias LLP
ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS, LLP
ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS, LLP
Rose Klein & Marias
ROSE KLEIN

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 →

Rose, Klein & Marias

Decisions

Years

2006–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

14 for the defense

11 returned for more record

10 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.

ADJ18656111 · 2026-06-26 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on March 3, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that defendant did not prove that decedent's death was proximately caused by intoxication. Defendant asserts that the WCJ erred because the evidence supports the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner ("QME") that intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury.

The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that decedent's intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury, due to lack of concrete evidence and reliance on speculative assumptions in the QME report.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16929084 · 2025-12-22 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ found that applicant was not an employee because he was not receiving wages irrespective of profits.2 The parties fail to acknowledge that the section goes on to specifically address general partners, without limiting language, that have not elected to be excluded from coverage.3 Whether applicant was a working member of a partnership or a general partner, he would be automatically covered by the division regardless. Section 3352 (a)(17)(A) specifically provides that general partners may be excluded from the definition of employee, and thereby excluded from coverage, only when they execute "a written waiver of his or her rights under this chapter stating under penalty of perjury that the person is a qualifying general partner." (Lab. Code, § 3352(a)(17))4 Neither party appears to dispute that applicant is a general partner that remained a practicing attorney, thereby meeting the definition of employee either under the general definition or the explicit inclusion of subsection f of Section 3351. Thus, this issue is not an employment issue, but a coverage issue.

The WCJ found applicant was not an employee under section 3351(f) because he did not receive wages irrespective of profits, but the Appeals Board found that as a general partner who did not waive coverage, he is covered by the division. The matter involves insurance coverage and must be submitted to arbitration before further proceedings.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ17834281 · 2025-11-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The undersigned issued a Finding & Order (F&O) in which it was found that Applicant's injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment because it fell within the "going and coming" rule. applicant (Petitioner) timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration. Petitioner contends that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact and that the findings of fact do not support the order. The undersigned recommends that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied.

The injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment because it was barred by the going and coming rule, with no applicable exceptions met by the applicant.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ7835304 · 2025-10-17 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3The issue presented on reconsideration is whether applicant may be paid compensation for a psychiatric injury in this matter pursuant to section 3208.3(d), which provides in relevant part:

The Board corrected the WCJ's erroneous finding that applicant did not sustain a psychiatric injury AOE/COE but affirmed that applicant was not employed for at least six months and the injury was not caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition, thus no compensation under section 3208.3(d).

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11202213 · 2025-05-09 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.5The conclusions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Wood with respect to causation of injury do not constitute substantial medical evidence without further explanation. The medical evaluators do not question applicant's reports of stress and repetitive use of the upper extremities at work, yet they fail to persuasively explain how and why these factors played no role in applicant's injuries to the circulatory system and upper extremities. As explained by the California Supreme Court, industrial factors need only be a contributing cause of injury, however slight. (See South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 299 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489].)

The medical evaluators' opinions on causation lacked sufficient explanation and reasoning to constitute substantial medical evidence, particularly regarding the role of work-related stress and repetitive use in the injuries. The Board found the need for further development of the record to obtain substantial evidence on causation.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14362966 · 2025-02-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the November 12, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an Energy Technician from November 1, 2020 to November 29, 2020, sustained industrial injury in the form of COVID-19.

The WCAB found that the WCJ's original decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the QME's medical opinion was limited to a single service call and did not address the totality of the evidence; the record was incomplete and required further development to determine industrial causation of COVID-19.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ1993155 · 2024-12-09 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6In verified pleadings, applicant stated - in essence - that she did not receive the notice of intent to dismiss the cases, which raises procedural due process concerns as to whether the required notice was received by applicant. It is one of the basic tenets of jurisprudence that a party must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before their case is dismissed. (See, e.g., San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].) Thus, the failure to serve applicant with the notice of intent is not only a violation of WCAB Rules; it constitutes a fundamental violation of applicant's due process rights, rendering the resulting July 30, 2019, Order dismissing cases ADJ1993155 and ADJ984342 void on its face.

The WCAB found the dismissal orders void ab initio due to lack of proper service and due process violations, thus it has jurisdiction to reopen the cases.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ10192708 · 2024-12-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.5Here it is unclear from our preliminary review of the existing record as to whether there was a stipulation to the maximum temporary disability indemnity rate by the parties, particularly as it pertains to the payment of indemnity pursuant to section 4661.5. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petitions, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

The WCAB found it unclear whether there was a stipulation to the maximum temporary disability indemnity rate and granted reconsideration to further study the issue.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14201376 · 2023-12-18 · Oxnard District OfficeTemporary disabilitydeferred

Determinative passage · p.2We are not persuaded that the record supports the allowance of a credit for overpayment of TD. The WCJ relies on the December 15, 2020 pain management panel qualified medical examination report of Lawrence Miller, M.D., to allow the credit. Dr. Miller found applicant to have reached maximum medical improvement. (Dr. Miller's 12/15/20 report, at p. 13, defendant's Exhibit D.) However, the signature page of Dr. Miller's December 15, 2020 report is undated, the attached proof of service is undated and unsigned, and what appears to be a facsimile stamp at the bottom of each page of the report states "12/31/2020 12:00:00 AM." Thus, there does not appear to be evidence that the report was transmitted prior to December 31, 2020. In addition, EDD began to pay benefits on January 8, 2021 (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE) 8/16/23, at p 3:9-11), presumably based on the certification of her treating physician.

The issue of credit for overpayment of temporary disability was deferred for further development of the record due to questions about the timeliness of the Panel QME report and communications with EDD.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ9044260 · 2023-12-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2We will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ's decision to defer the issue of injury to the cervical spine. The cervical spine was not placed at issue in the Minutes of Hearing of the August 17, 2023 trial, where applicant claimed injury to the "cardiovascular system, headaches, sleep, bilateral hips, left knee and left leg" in addition to the admitted lumbar spine. It was thus error to find injury to a body part that was not placed at issue at trial. As the Court of Appeal stated in Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 711 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230], "`An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. [Citation.]' (Fortich v. Workers' Comp.

The cervical spine injury was not placed at issue at trial, and no substantial medical evidence of industrial causation was presented, requiring deferral of this issue.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ14362966 · 2023-11-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that Applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of COVID-19; and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his injury claim.

The WCJ's original finding that the applicant did not sustain a COVID-19 injury AOE/COE was rescinded because the QME's opinion was found speculative and lacking scientific basis, warranting further proceedings including deposition of the QME.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9823497 · 2023-08-04 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, State of California, Department of Transportation, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Awards issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on September 29, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's admitted industrial injuries to multiple parts of his body during a cumulative period ending February 10, 2014 (ADJ9823497) and on May 26, 2016 (ADJ10495068) caused permanent partial disability of 85%. The WCJ also found that the industrial injury on February 18, 2009 (ADJ7667324) caused permanent partial disability of 14%.

The WCAB rescinded the prior Findings and Awards and remanded for consideration of the Compromise and Release, thus not ruling on the merits of the permanent partial disability ratings.

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.

ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS

ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS LLP

ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS

LAW OFFICES OF ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS

ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS LLP

Rose, Klein & Marias

Herbert I. Galperson, Esq., Rose, Klein & Marias LLP

ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS, LLP

ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS, LLP

Rose Klein & Marias

ROSE KLEIN