California WCABLaw firm

State Compensation Insurance Fund, Legal

State Compensation Insurance Fund, Legal is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Psyche AOE/COE (1) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Fresno, then Sacramento.

Decisions: 9
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 6

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Fresno 3
Sacramento 2
Anaheim 1
Los Angeles 1
San Diego 1
Van Nuys 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.

3 for the defense
2 for the applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ12881816 · 2024-07-22 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.9Here, the reporting of Dr. Lonky offers only his conclusions regarding the existence of a cumulative injury to applicant's lungs and does not address the issue of whether there was one or two cumulative injuries. (See E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687, 1691].) Further, Dr. Marino's six- page report regarding applicant's injury to her feet was conclusionary and did not set forth the reasoning behind his opinion that the injury to her feet was not industrial. (See Granado v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 407.) Therefore, there is a lack of substantial evidence on the issue of whether there was one or two cumulative injuries to the lungs as well as a lack of substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury to the feet was not industrial.
There was insufficient substantial evidence to support the WCJ's finding that the feet injury was not industrial and to determine the number of cumulative injuries to the lungs.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ9388767 · 2022-12-28 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Based upon applicant's credible testimony and the medical reports of Dr. Michael Kimball, M.D., Dr. Peter Hanson, M.D. and Dr. John Lane, M.D., various dates, it is found that applicant sustained injury to his left knee, right knee, right hip, neck and back arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period 2003 to and including January 20, 2017. The date of injury pursuant to Labor Code Section 5412 is discussed below. THERE IS ONLY ONE CONTINUOUS TRAUMA PERIOD
The continuous trauma injury to left knee, right knee, right hip, neck, and back was found compensable with one continuous trauma period and the date of injury as April 1, 2014. Liability was placed on the petitioner as the sole carrier during the one-year period following the date of injury.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ10305799 · 2025-10-20 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed
Determinative passage · p.2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on August 20, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, October 19, 2025, which by operation of law means this decision is due by Monday, October 20, 2025. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.). This decision is issued by or on October 20, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the Petition as required by section 5909(a).
The Board acted within the 60-day period required by amended section 5909, as the case was transmitted on August 20, 2025, and the decision was issued by October 20, 2025. The Board thus had jurisdiction to grant reconsideration and defer a final decision.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12296469 · 2024-05-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.
The District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration; to permit review of the proposed settlement, the WCJ's decision is rescinded and the matter is returned to the trial level.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ4250013 · 2023-07-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The petition in this matter was filed on June 7, 2023. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's April 14, 2023 decision and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.
The petition for reconsideration was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision, exceeding the jurisdictional time limit.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11522074 · 2023-07-14 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10448534 · 2023-04-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3I. INTRODUCTION Applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim alleging injury to the back, arm, legs, and knee, while working on 7/19/2014. Applicant settled the claim by way of Stipulation with Request for Award on 9/5/2017. On 9/6/2022, Applicant filed a Petition to Set Aside the Stipulations with Request for Award with a Declaration of Readiness. The matter proceeded to trial on the Petition to Set Aside. Applicant filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration under Labor Code § 5903 following the court's Findings and Order dated 2/10/2023 finding there was no good cause or mutual mistake to set aside the Stipulations with Request for Award. Applicant contends because defendant admitted compensability by paying for treatment to the eye, there was a mutual mistake and the Stipulation with Request for Award should be set aside. At the time of this report, Defendant had not filed an answer to the Petition for Reconsideration.
The court found no mutual mistake because the right eye was not pled or listed in the Stipulations, no medical evidence showed industrial relation, and the petition was filed beyond the 5-year limit for reopening under Labor Code § 5804.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11604315 · 2023-03-20 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Date of Injury: 07/01/2000 through 10/15/2018 Age on date of injury: 45 Occupation: Corrections Officer Body part injured: Heart Identity of petitioner: Defendant Timeliness: The petition is timely filed. Verification: The petition is verified. Date of the Award: December 29, 2022
The WCAB panel found the Petition for Reconsideration lacked substantial medical evidence to rebut the heart trouble presumption, relying on the absence of a key medical record and the QME's unsupported opinion.
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.

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, LEGAL
STATE COMPENSATION FUND, LEGAL

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 →

State Compensation Insurance Fund, Legal

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the defense

2 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ12881816 · 2024-07-22 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.9Here, the reporting of Dr. Lonky offers only his conclusions regarding the existence of a cumulative injury to applicant's lungs and does not address the issue of whether there was one or two cumulative injuries. (See E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687, 1691].) Further, Dr. Marino's six- page report regarding applicant's injury to her feet was conclusionary and did not set forth the reasoning behind his opinion that the injury to her feet was not industrial. (See Granado v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 407.) Therefore, there is a lack of substantial evidence on the issue of whether there was one or two cumulative injuries to the lungs as well as a lack of substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury to the feet was not industrial.

There was insufficient substantial evidence to support the WCJ's finding that the feet injury was not industrial and to determine the number of cumulative injuries to the lungs.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ9388767 · 2022-12-28 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Based upon applicant's credible testimony and the medical reports of Dr. Michael Kimball, M.D., Dr. Peter Hanson, M.D. and Dr. John Lane, M.D., various dates, it is found that applicant sustained injury to his left knee, right knee, right hip, neck and back arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period 2003 to and including January 20, 2017. The date of injury pursuant to Labor Code Section 5412 is discussed below. THERE IS ONLY ONE CONTINUOUS TRAUMA PERIOD

The continuous trauma injury to left knee, right knee, right hip, neck, and back was found compensable with one continuous trauma period and the date of injury as April 1, 2014. Liability was placed on the petitioner as the sole carrier during the one-year period following the date of injury.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ10305799 · 2025-10-20 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed

Determinative passage · p.2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on August 20, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, October 19, 2025, which by operation of law means this decision is due by Monday, October 20, 2025. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.). This decision is issued by or on October 20, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the Petition as required by section 5909(a).

The Board acted within the 60-day period required by amended section 5909, as the case was transmitted on August 20, 2025, and the decision was issued by October 20, 2025. The Board thus had jurisdiction to grant reconsideration and defer a final decision.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12296469 · 2024-05-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

The District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration; to permit review of the proposed settlement, the WCJ's decision is rescinded and the matter is returned to the trial level.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ4250013 · 2023-07-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2The petition in this matter was filed on June 7, 2023. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's April 14, 2023 decision and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.

The petition for reconsideration was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision, exceeding the jurisdictional time limit.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11522074 · 2023-07-14 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10448534 · 2023-04-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3I. INTRODUCTION Applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim alleging injury to the back, arm, legs, and knee, while working on 7/19/2014. Applicant settled the claim by way of Stipulation with Request for Award on 9/5/2017. On 9/6/2022, Applicant filed a Petition to Set Aside the Stipulations with Request for Award with a Declaration of Readiness. The matter proceeded to trial on the Petition to Set Aside. Applicant filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration under Labor Code § 5903 following the court's Findings and Order dated 2/10/2023 finding there was no good cause or mutual mistake to set aside the Stipulations with Request for Award. Applicant contends because defendant admitted compensability by paying for treatment to the eye, there was a mutual mistake and the Stipulation with Request for Award should be set aside. At the time of this report, Defendant had not filed an answer to the Petition for Reconsideration.

The court found no mutual mistake because the right eye was not pled or listed in the Stipulations, no medical evidence showed industrial relation, and the petition was filed beyond the 5-year limit for reopening under Labor Code § 5804.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11604315 · 2023-03-20 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Date of Injury: 07/01/2000 through 10/15/2018 Age on date of injury: 45 Occupation: Corrections Officer Body part injured: Heart Identity of petitioner: Defendant Timeliness: The petition is timely filed. Verification: The petition is verified. Date of the Award: December 29, 2022

The WCAB panel found the Petition for Reconsideration lacked substantial medical evidence to rebut the heart trouble presumption, relying on the absence of a key medical record and the QME's unsupported opinion.

Official decision · page 3 →