Solov & Teitell

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 58
• Santa Ana 4
• Riverside 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Anaheim 2
• Los Angles 2
• Pomona 2
• Long Beach 1
• Oxnard 1
• Redding 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.

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

Counted over 73 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.

• ADJ11235520 · 2026-06-22 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Defendant relies on a UR request for additional information dated June 6, 2022, to support application of the extended timeframe under section 4610(j)(2). However, the determinative question is not merely the date appearing on the document, but whether the request was actually and immediately communicated to the treating physician and the employee within the statutory timeframe.

  The record did not establish whether defendant timely and properly communicated the June 6, 2022 request for additional information, creating an evidentiary gap preventing determination of timeliness of the June 10, 2022 UR denial. The case was remanded for further evidentiary development to resolve this issue.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9600339 · 2026-06-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on December 6, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant, while employed by defendant, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE)1 to various body parts; and that defendant did not deny medical treatment to applicant.

  The Board found that defendant's refusal to authorize treatment with Dr. Patterson, a physician employed by Casa Colina listed in the MPN, constituted an unreasonable denial of medical treatment under Labor Code section 4600 and related regulations and precedent cases Rivas and Montiel.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12308686 · 2026-06-11 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In the present case, applicant designated Casa Colina rather than any individual physician as her primary treating physician. This designation violates AD Rule 9785(a)(1), which defines the primary treating physician as an actual physician and not a facility or other entity.

  Applicant designated a facility, not an individual physician, as primary treating physician, contrary to regulations; defendant provided access to three neurologists within the MPN, meeting statutory and regulatory requirements for access to care; applicant did not meet burden to show neglect or refusal to provide care.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10966476 · 2026-05-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8performed any investigation into the need for home health care services during that period. Therefore, the record confirms the need for home health care services during the period July 4, 2018 to October 17, 2019. We also conclude that the evidentiary record supports the reasonableness of the services in accordance with the medical treatment utilization schedule for home health care services.

  The WCAB found that the widow was entitled to reimbursement for home health care services from July 4, 2018 to October 17, 2019 based on medical prescriptions and defendant's failure to investigate the need for such care, consistent with Labor Code and case law requirements.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ2126841 · 2026-04-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Based on the above discussion, we find no reasonable basis to disturb the WCJ's findings as to the body parts of the left shoulder and chronic pain syndrome based on the well-reasoned Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) report of Jeffrey Berman, M.D., dated June 29, 2017.

  The WCAB found that the issues of injury to the left shoulder and chronic pain syndrome were not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel because they were not decided in prior proceedings and were supported by substantial medical evidence, including the QME report of Dr. Jeffrey Berman.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8471459 · 2026-03-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1The following Decision After Remittitur is issued pursuant to the Order issued on February 20, 2026 by the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 8 (Second District), in which the Court found good cause to grant the request of the Appeals Board to annul the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued on December 10, 2024 (Decision), and remand the matter to the Appeals Board for further proceedings. This is our decision after remittitur and remand.

  The record lacked substantial evidence to support the denial of industrial causation due to missing contemporaneous witness statements not provided to medical evaluators, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19406087 · 2026-02-03 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed on May 23, 2024 as a driver, at Irvine, California, sustained injury arising out of in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his left eye, left side of face, head, neck, left arm, chest, left shoulder, and injury in the form of a concussion with all other body parts deferred. The WCJ further found that the treatment request for continual care at Casa Colina is reasonable and necessary, and that defendant has not provided evidence of a change in applicant's condition or circumstances that show that applicant's treatment at Casa Colina is no longer reasonably required. Additionally, the WCJ found that applicant does not have the burden of being required to provide a new Request for Authorization (RFA), and that defendant failed to meet the requirements of Labor Code Section 4610(i)(4)(C)1 and Title 8, California Code of Regulations 9792.9.1(e)(6). Applicant was awarded further medical treatment at Casa Colina.

  The WCJ found the treatment request reasonable and necessary and that defendant failed to show a change in condition or meet statutory requirements for denial. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the merits and statutory law.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19266826 · 2026-01-09 · Long Beach District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.74061 and section 4062. (Joint Exh. 2 - PTP Objection Letter dated 3/12/25.) As discussed below,

  The WCAB found that applicant's objection letter met the requirements of Labor Code section 4061, entitling her to a QME panel under section 4062.2, and that the WCJ's invalidation of the QME panel was incorrect and caused significant prejudice to applicant.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15838301 · 2025-12-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (FF&O) issued on September 9, 2025 by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein, the WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his head, neck, and back, that there has not been a change of circumstances shown regarding the applicant's need for continued care at Casa Colina at this time, and ordered defendant to pay Casa Colina for applicant's ongoing medical care after July 24, 2024, in an amount to be adjusted by the parties, with jurisdiction reserved.

  The WCJ found no change in circumstances regarding the applicant's need for continued care, supported by Dr. Patterson's opinion, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16458244 · 2025-07-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8II. Defendant first contends that the WCJ erroneously found that applicant sustained injury to the cervical spine. Specifically, defendant argues that the finding is unsupported by substantial medical evidence because Dr. Bertoldi did not review applicant's Kaiser records generated from the date of injury until February 22, 2022, and QME Dr. Smith did not examine applicant until two years after the injury. We observe that all decisions by a WCJ must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16]; Bracken v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 246 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 349].) Substantial evidence has been described as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and must be more than a mere scintilla. (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566].) To constitute substantial evidence "... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo v.

  The WCJ's finding that applicant sustained injury to the cervical spine is supported by substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Michael Smith, who examined the applicant and reviewed relevant medical records, despite defendant's challenge to Dr. Bertoldi's report.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ8102669 · 2025-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Based on the foregoing, we concur with the WCJ's determination that Drs. Hirsch and Fink have identified multiple preexisting nonindustrial factors as causative of applicant's current permanent disability. However, because neither the regular physician nor the QME offers an explanation of how they identified the extent to which each of those factors contributed to present permanent disability, expressed as an approximate percentage, the apportionment analysis is incomplete and cannot be adopted. (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621; Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 647 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647] [Appeals Board may not rely on an apportionment opinion expressed as a mere legal conclusion].)

  The WCAB found that the apportionment analysis by Drs. Hirsch and Fink was incomplete and lacked explanation on how percentages were assigned, thus not substantial evidence to support apportionment.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ12511409 · 2025-06-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Here, there is no evidence that a medical professional evaluated whether the RFA submitted on November 27, 2024 established the need for expedited review, or that any such determination was communicated to the prescribing physician within 72 hours of defendant's receipt of the RFA. As a result, defendant's December 11, 2024 Utilization Review decision was untimely, and the WCAB is vested with jurisdiction over the underlying medical treatment dispute. (Dubon v. World Restoration (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298 [2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 131].) Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, substitute new findings of fact that defendant's December 11, 2024 UR determination was untimely, and return this matter to the WCJ for determination of whether applicant has met the burden of establishing that the requested medical treatment is medically necessary under applicable medical treatment utilization schedule and recommended guidelines. (Lab. Code, § 4604.5; 5307.27 et seq.)

  The WCAB found that defendant's December 11, 2024 Utilization Review decision was untimely because no medical professional evaluated the need for expedited review within the required 72-hour timeframe, vesting the WCAB with jurisdiction over the medical treatment dispute.

  Official decision · page 10 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 16.

• SOLOV & TEITELL
• LAW OFFICES OF SOLOV & TEITELL
• SOLOV AND TEITELL
• SOLOV AND TEITELL, A.P.C.
• SOLOV TEITELL
• Solov & Teitell
• Solov Teitell
• LAW OFFICES OF SOLOV & TEITELL, APC
• SOLOV AND TEITELL, A P.C.
• SOLOV AND TEITELL, APC
• SOLOV & TEITELL, APC
• SOLOV & TEITELL APC

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.