Rowen, Gurvey & Win

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 26
• Fresno 2
• Long Beach 1
• Los Angeles 1
• San Bernardino 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 defense
• 10 for the applicant
• 8 returned for more record

Counted over 29 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.

• ADJ9518215 · 2026-06-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) dated February 18, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) found, in relevant part, that while employed on March 4, 2014 by defendant as a custodian, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the lumbar spine, cervical spine, bilateral shoulders, headaches, vertigo and dizziness, internal, heart, sleep, fibromyalgia, and sexual dysfunction resulting in 100% permanent disability without apportionment.

  The WCAB found that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment and is 100% permanently disabled without apportionment, relying on substantial evidence including medical and vocational expert reports. Defendant's challenge to apportionment based on Dr. Levine's findings and sub rosa video footage was rejected as the evidence supported the applicant's total disability without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12214919 · 2026-02-20 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Joint Findings, Award, and Order" (F&A) issued on November 4, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that while employed by applicant as a home care aide, applicant sustained an industrial injury on May 6, 2019, to her right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, right wrist, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, right shoulder and right ankle. The WCJ further found that applicant sustained industrial injury on March 19, 2019 while employed by defendant to her low back, right ankle, head, right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, right shoulder and right ankle. The WCJ found that the combined effects of the industrial injuries resulted in applicant sustaining a single combined award of permanent total disability. The WCJ issued an award to applicant, less an award of attorney's fees according to a DEU calculation.

  The WCJ found permanent total disability based on combined industrial injuries to multiple body parts with substantial medical and vocational evidence supporting total disability and no apportionment to non-industrial causes. The WCAB affirmed the joint and several award of permanent disability across both injury dates, excluding the right shoulder, and found defendant failed to prove apportionment of work restrictions.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16933451 · 2025-11-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Applicant sustained injury to his left eye when one or more welding sparks entered his left eye on July 19, 2022. According to applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony (12/26/2024 MOH; pages 3-4):

  The Board found credible and unrebutted testimony and medical evidence supporting that the applicant sustained a high velocity eye injury as defined by the statute, entitling him to extended temporary disability benefits.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ15406376 · 2025-11-03 · Long Beach 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 July 25, 2025. The WCJ found that applicant, while employed by defendant during the period March 1, 1995 through March 31, 2020 as a cook, did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his heart, cardiac, insect bite, Chagas disease, internal, respiratory, pulmonary, stress, psyche, depression, sleep, swelling of joints, neck, back, shoulders, wrists, hands, bilateral carpal tunnel, legs, feet, varicose veins, headaches, bilateral eyes, vision loss, ophthalmology, bilateral hearing loss, ENT, gastritis, stomach, constipation, neurology, dizziness, forgetfulness, brain fog, high blood pressure, bilateral upper and lower extremity, neuropathy, chronic pain, anxiety, and chemical exposure. The WCJ ordered applicant take nothing for his claim.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ applied the wrong legal standard for causation and that the record needed further development to clarify whether the injury was specific or cumulative, thus granting reconsideration for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10963100 · 2025-10-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to the July 8, 2025 Joint Findings and Order issued by a workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found, in pertinent part, that (1) applicant, while employed by defendant on June 17, 2017, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his right ankle in case number ADJ10955805; (2) applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists and knees in ADJ1096310 [date of injury not identified]; (3) applicant properly obtained a qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in pain management; (4) the reporting of Guodong Li, M.D., is admissible as the PQME in pain management; and (5) Dr. Li shall be allowed to finalize the evaluation of the applicant. The WCJ ordered that Dr. Li be allowed complete his evaluation of applicant, with all medical records to be forwarded to him in the next 15 days, and that his original reports shall remain in evidence. All other issues, including sanctions and costs were ordered off calendar, with the parties to meet and confer as to same within the next 15 days.

  The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his bilateral wrists and knees, which was affirmed by the Appeals Board.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15865183 · 2024-10-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4(Lab. Code, § 4656(c)(2).) Where separate injuries result in concurrent periods of temporary disability, the 104-week

  The Appeals Board found that the 104-week limitation periods run concurrently for separate injuries causing concurrent temporary disability, but findings of fact must be made in each case, and the cases must be consolidated for hearing. Since only one case was submitted and no findings were made for the other case, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8191880 · 2024-10-08 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant petitions for reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 24, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed during the period of January 1, 2006, through February 9, 2012, by defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of the employment to his psyche and lumbar spine and consisting of hypertension, coronary disease, sexual dysfunction and diabetes, resulting in need for medical treatment and permanent partial disability of 65%.

  The WCJ's permanent disability rating was challenged but the matter was not decided on the merits; instead, the case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings on the Compromise and Release.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18581542 · 2024-09-16 · Fresno District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal, or in the alternative, reconsideration, of the June 19, 2024 Order wherein the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) denied applicant's Petition for Change of Venue.

  Applicant demonstrated good cause for change of venue due to full-time residence in Los Angeles County, hardship of travel to Fresno, and location of attorney and treaters; denial of removal would cause substantial prejudice or irreparable harm; reconsideration was inadequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13379668 · 2024-06-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Regarding the issue of sanctions against lien claimant, we note that the burden of proof rests on the party holding the affirmative of an issue. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) In this case, it was applicant who raised a claim for the imposition of sanctions against lien claimant. However, applicant did not file a petition asserting the specific allegations in accordance with our rules. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10510.) Nevertheless, because applicant is seeking the imposition of a sanction under section 5813, he carried the burden of proof on that issue. To meet that burden, applicant was required to prove each fact supporting the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, WCAB Rules provide, in relevant part: (1) that "[e]very petition for reconsideration... shall fairly state all the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue [and] [e]ach contention contained in a petition for reconsideration... shall be separately stated and clearly set forth" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945 and (2) that "a petition for reconsideration... may be denied or dismissed if it is unsupported by specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10972.)

  Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for sanctions against the lien claimant; no specific references to the record or persuasive evidence were provided.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ16695855 · 2024-01-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4II FACTS the applicant testified that on July 22, 2022, she was performing her duties tagging and pricing clothing.1 At the moment of the incident, she was tagging garments, approximately 6 to 8 inches away from the clothing rack. She was looking down, as she had to be careful with the pricing gun to avoid the needle going into her hand. Suddenly, the clothing rack was pushed onto her and was on top of her. She "went into the mutt, [which is a wire cage that holds clothing], and then I don't know, I just started holding my head because I was really surprised at all this." She loudly2 announced, "Were you trying to kill me?" She told those present that she had rods in her back and that she was going to go to the hospital. 3 She then left for Kaiser. The clothing rack contacted her body, striking her chest around the top of her rib cage. This caused her to go backwards, and her neck, upper back and left shoulder contacted the mutt behind her.4 the applicant's testimony as to these points was credible, and unrebutted. Defendant has denied applicant's claim of injury and has suggested that the claim is fraudulent.

  The court found credible testimony and medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE and rejected defendant's contrary video evidence and fraud claim.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ15734362 · 2023-10-09 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Based on the unrebutted medical expert opinions of Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) Linslee Egan, M.D. in psychiatry and of PQME Kouron Daldalyan in internal medicine, which are further supported by the expert opinions of Primary Treating Physician (PTP) Marcia Lamm, Ph.D. and Vera David, Ph.D. in psychology, it was found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her psyche, gastrointestinal system, and in the form of headaches and bruxism. Dr. Egan diagnosed PTSD, with a GAF of 55, not yet at maximal medical improvement (MMI), causing temporary disability from January 7, 2022 and ongoing. Dr. Egan's causation

  The panel found that the applicant sustained injury to psyche, gastrointestinal system, headaches and bruxism arising out of and in the course of employment based on unrebutted medical expert opinions of PQME Dr. Egan and Dr. Daldalyan, supported by PTP Dr. Lamm and Dr. David, with causation apportioned primarily to workplace trauma and workload, and less than 25% to personnel actions, thus compensable under Labor Code Section 3208.3(h).

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8210063 · 2023-08-29 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (En Banc) issued by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on June 22, 2023 (hereinafter, "Opinion"). In the Opinion, the Appeals Board en banc rescinded the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 21, 2023, and returned the matter to the trial level for development of the record and for further proceedings. The en banc decision held that (1) Labor Code1 section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, and that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment;" (2) that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability; and (3) that vocational evidence must address apportionment, and may not substitute impermissible "vocational apportionment" in place of otherwise valid medical apportionment.

  The Board held that only evaluating physicians may make apportionment determinations based on substantial medical evidence, rejecting vocational apportionment as inconsistent with Labor Code section 4663 and case law.

  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.

• LAW FIRM OF ROWEN, GURVEY & WIN
• Rowen, Gurvey & Win
• ROWEN, GURVEY & WIN
• Law Firm of Rowen, Gurvey & Win
• ROWEN GURVEY & WIN
• LAW FIRM OF ROWEN, GURVEY & WIN, APC
• LAW OFFICES OF ROWEN, GURVEY & WIN
• LAW FIRM OF ROWEN GURVEY & WIN
• Rowen, Gurvey and Win
• Rowen Gurvey & Win

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.