Sparagna & Sparagna

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 18

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.

• 8 for the defense
• 5 returned for more record
• 4 for the applicant

Counted over 16 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.

• ADJ9903090 · 2026-04-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Given the above circumstances, we conclude that the arbitration proceedings as conducted violated Avo's right to due process. More significantly, the F&O was intentionally not served on Avo's. This was not disputed by the parties. Given that this is in clear contravention to section 5277(a), which requires service on all parties, the F&O is void ab initio and must be vacated.

  The arbitration Findings and Order was void ab initio due to failure to serve Avo's, a necessary party, violating due process and Labor Code section 5277(a). The WCJ lacked jurisdiction to vacate the order, so the WCAB vacated it and returned the matter for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12874605 · 2026-01-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7III. Although we have preliminarily considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answers thereto, and the WCJ's Report, and the record in this matter, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed on the disputed issues raised in the petition. As contended in defendant's Petition, applicant's location, condition, and even the evidence in this case have been subject to change over the more than one and a half years since Dr. Sangnil recommended the currently disputed items of treatment. Accordingly, taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the Petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study how the facts of this case apply to unaddressed and developing legal issues, and to ensure that the parties are afforded due process. Thereafter, a final decision after reconsideration will be issued by the Appeals Board, from which any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to section 5950 et seq.

  The Appeals Board found that the record was not properly developed on the disputed issues due to changes in applicant's condition and location, requiring further development and reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ659445 · 2024-12-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeDeath benefitsmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1In that decision, the WCJ found that decedent sustained industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment on June 30, 2006 resulting in his death. The WCJ further found that applicant was dually employed by Bella Toluca, LLC/Nile Niami and Apex Design Builders, Inc. with joint and several liability.

  The WCJ found industrial causation for decedent's death and awarded death benefits to three dependents, but the WCJ's finding regarding the special death benefit for the brother was amended on reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9036010 · 2024-07-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of America seeks reconsideration of the April 3, 2024 Findings and Award, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that treating physician Dr. Shamie submitted a Request for Authorization (RFA) on February 16, 2024, that the RFA indicated the need for expedited review, and that defendant did not issue a determination in response to the RFA within 72 hours. The WCJ determined that defendant's Utilization Review (UR) determination issued on February 21, 2024 was untimely, and that the request for home caregiver assistance was medically necessary.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the defendant failed to timely issue a Utilization Review determination within 72 hours as required for an expedited review request, and that the requested home caregiver assistance was medically necessary based on evidence and treatment guidelines.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12874580 · 2024-02-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9However, the issue identified as issue number 4 at trial, requesting an order that Casa Colina does not need to submit recurring RFAs, is denied without prejudice, because Casa Colina should be able to follow the law as explained in this opinion and the Patterson Significant Panel Decision, as long as that remains the law and until if and when there is a change of circumstances. To issue an ongoing order that no more RFAs are needed would deprive Casa Colina of the medical discretion to decide whether and when there has been a change in circumstances that alters its treatment recommendations. If defendants misapply the reasoning of this decision and Patterson to unilaterally terminate authorization of treatment at Casa Colina without evidence of a change in circumstances, applicant's counsel may request another expedited hearing to enforce applicant's rights under Patterson just the same as if the requested order, which is potentially problematic, were issued, Because this request for an order that RFAs are no longer necessary is denied without prejudice, defendant's objection to the issue (identified as issue number 8) is moot.

  The Board denied the request to eliminate recurring RFAs without prejudice, allowing Casa Colina to follow Patterson and submit RFAs only if a change in circumstances occurs.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10820377 · 2023-08-15 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, American Zurich Insurance Company, petitions for reconsideration of the Amended Joint Findings and Award (after Petition to Reopen) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on November 19, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed during the period January 1, 2007 to July 2, 2015, as a janitor by Oasis Outsourcing, Inc./ASC Process Systems sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his neck, back, right shoulder, wrists, upper extremities, upper digestive system and consisting of hypertension and hernia, resulting in permanent partial disability of 72% in Case ADJ10820377.

  The WCJ's finding of 72% permanent disability was challenged by defendant; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings to consider a Compromise and Release settlement, without ruling on the merits of the rating.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ6994280 · 2026-05-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 5, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, leading to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2876196 · 2026-03-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issuemixed

  Determinative passage · p.8For the reasons set forth above, we amend the decision to defer the issues of permanent disability and attorney fees, and the issue of a credit against temporary or permanent disability indemnity to pay attorney fees (Finding of Fact 11, Award a, b), and otherwise affirm the decision.

  The WCJ's original permanent disability award was affirmed except that the issues of permanent disability and attorney fees were deferred for further development and consideration of vocational expert evidence under the standards set forth in Nunes and Valdovinos.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12874580 · 2025-08-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on February 5, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ659445 · 2024-02-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, and we will order that this matter be referred to a WCJ or designated hearing officer of the Appeals Board for a status conference. Our order granting defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 et seq.

  The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record, deferring the final decision.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ14068880 · 2023-06-27 · Van Nuys 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 would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11922504 · 2023-06-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ issued the order for additional QME panels in internal medicine and psychiatry without providing defendant with the opportunity to offer evidence in rebuttal or to otherwise object. (F&O, March 21, 2023; see also Answer, pp. 2:25-27, 3:1-2.) The WCJ therefore decided the matter in violation of defendant's right to due process and a fair hearing, which caused defendant substantial prejudice and irreparable harm that reconsideration cannot cure. Thus, we conclude that removal is warranted and will return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to create an evidentiary record regarding the issue of the disputed QME panels and to provide each party with an opportunity to submit evidence regarding this issue.

  The WCJ's order was interlocutory and not a final order; defendant was denied due process by not being allowed to rebut or object before the order issued, causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm. Removal was warranted and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• SPARAGNA & SPARAGNA
• Sparagna & Sparagna
• SPARAGNA SPARAGNA

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.