Solimon Rodgers

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE4

Where they appear

• Pomona 12
• San Bernardino 2
• Fresno 1
• San Bernadino 1
• Santa Barbara 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.

• 10 for the defense
• 4 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 16 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.

• ADJ19324168 · 2025-12-04 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, in her October 14, 2024 report, Dr. Hopkins noted that applicant's "neck pain has improved but he continues to have vague low back pain" which is "diffuse in the lumbar paraspinal muscles." (Exhibit B, p. 14.) She similarly opined that applicant has "intermittent discomfort in the shoulders and wrists" and "intermittent diffuse pain in his knees." (Ibid.) With respect to applicant's hips, she noted complaints of groin and leg pain "with prolonged sitting, standing or walking" as well as "significant degenerative changes in the hips" and "decreased range of motion bilaterally." (Ibid.) She ultimately concluded that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine, cervical spine, shoulders, wrists, knees, or hips. (Id. at p. 15.) Although she explained that osteoarthritic changes contributed to applicant's hip complaints, she failed to fully address whether applicant's employment was also contributing factor and if not, why. She noted also that applicant "never reported or sought care for low back pain while employed[,]" but as the parties are well aware, lack of reporting and/or treatment does not preclude injury AOE/COE. Further reasoning is necessary. Considering the foregoing, we do not believe that the report of Dr. Hopkins, as it currently stands, is substantial medical evidence.

  The PQME report was found not to be substantial medical evidence as it failed to fully address causation for all claimed injuries and lacked sufficient reasoning, necessitating further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12744384 · 2025-07-25 · San Bernadino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 9, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that while employed as a customer service representative during the period of June 29, 2019 through March 4, 2020, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment through a sudden and extraordinary event which qualifies for an exception to the 6-month employment requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3(d).

  The WCJ misassigned the burden of proof on the six-month employment requirement to the applicant, and the evidence was insufficient to establish the employment period was less than six months. The matter was remanded for further development of the record on whether the applicant's employment period substantially complies with the six-month requirement and whether the injury resulted from a sudden and extraordinary event.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12387385 · 2021-12-20 · Santa Barbara Satellite OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Turning to defendant's Petition, defendant asks that we find that, because of the lack of medical evidence, applicant did not meet his burden of proof that he sustained injury AOE/COE. The WCJ determined that that the medical record needs to be developed by use of a PQME, AME or "regular physician" appointed by the WCJ, in order to prove or disprove a contested injury. (Report, p. 3.) The WCJ's finding that additional medical evidence is necessary to develop the record is not a threshold issue. Although the decision contains a finding that is final, the petitioner is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)

  The WCJ found insufficient medical evidence to determine injury AOE/COE and ordered further medical development; the WCAB affirmed this finding, denying defendant's petition for reconsideration as removal was not justified and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11914024 · 2021-04-13 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this case, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) Charles Schwarz, M.D., is substantial medical evidence that supports the finding of no industrial causation. Therefore, applicant did not meet their burden of proof. Applicant did not exercise due diligence in developing the record prior to trial and the request to do so now is too late.

  The panel found the PQME Dr. Charles Schwarz's medical reports to be substantial evidence supporting no industrial causation, and the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for injury arising out of employment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17142839 · 2026-04-28 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In the Report, the WCJ notes that applicant first raised the lack of medical evidence on the day of trial and suggests that the issue should have been raised earlier. However, that is the first time that applicant could have raised the issue. When a WCJ bypasses procedures and sets a matter directly onto the trial calendar without joint agreement of the parties, without completing a mandatory settlement conference, and without completing a pre-trial conference statement, the WCJ cannot then fault a party for raising an issue on the day of trial. The Appeals Board has adopted standardized Rules of Practice and Procedure, in part, to prevent this type of error from occurring. The WCJ's failure to follow the Rules of Practice and Procedure in this case resulted in denying applicant's due process right to discovery, and thus removal is appropriate.

  The WCJ's order was not a final order as it was a discovery order regarding deposition conduct; reconsideration is not available, but removal is granted due to the WCJ's failure to follow required procedures, denying applicant due process in discovery.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ17142839 · 2025-10-21 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ handed applicant's attorney a dismissal form and instructed the attorney to obtain applicant's signature on the document and later issued a notice of intent to dismiss this case. Applicant further alleges that the WCJ has made inappropriate comments indicative of bias.

  The Board found that the allegations of bias were not supported by sufficient facts and that the WCJ's statements did not constitute disqualifying bias. The petition was denied but removal was granted due to procedural errors in handling the protective order petition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19817053 · 2025-10-10 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on August 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

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

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11166250 · 2025-08-18 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In this case, the Petition was filed on June 11, 2025, a date more than 25 days after the service of the Findings of Fact and Order issued on May 14, 2025, and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.

  The petition was filed more than 25 days after service of the Findings of Fact and Order, beyond the allowed time, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16767852 · 2025-05-09 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Order Dismissing Case for Failure to Appear" (Order) wherein the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) notified the parties that it would dismiss the case for applicant's failure to appear at the trial on November 16, 2023, if there was no objection within 10 days showing good cause. Applicant contends that she could not participate in her case initially as she was homeless but that she recently reached out to her attorney and is ready, willing, and able to participate now as she has found housing.

  Applicant's attorney appeared at trial, so no violation of appearance rule; order was void ab initio and improperly served; applicant likely not properly served due to homelessness, denying due process; therefore, order rescinded.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16328028 · 2024-10-07 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p.

  The Order Rescinding Findings and Order is an interim order, not a final order subject to reconsideration; removal denied as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16767852 · 2024-04-22 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order Dismissing Case for Failure to Appear (Order Dismissing) following a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NOI) the case dated November 16, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) notified the parties that it would dismiss the case for applicant's failure to appear at the trial on November 16, 2023, if there was no objection within 10 days showing good cause. Applicant contends that she could not participate in her case initially as she was homeless but that she recently reached out to her attorney and was ready, willing, and able to participate now as she has found housing.

  Applicant was homeless and unable to participate initially but later found housing and was ready to participate; the Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11166250 · 2024-04-05 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, as stated in the Report, there is no final order and no interim order as to venue from which applicant is aggrieved or may sustain prejudice or irreparable harm because adjudication of venue has been deferred pending determination of whether Solimon Rodgers represents applicant. (Report, pp. 2-3.) It follows that the Petition is premature. Accordingly, we will dismiss it.

  The petition was dismissed because there was no final or interim order on venue from which to seek reconsideration, making the petition premature.

  Official decision · page 4 →

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.

• SOLIMON RODGERS
• SOLIMON RODGERS, P.C.
• Solimon Rodgers
• Law Office of Solimon Rodgers
• Solimon Rodgers, P.C.
• SOLIMON RODGERS P. C.
• SOLIMON RODGERS P.C.
• SOLIMON RODGERS, PC
• SOLIMON/RODGERS

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.