Telleria, Telleria & Levy

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 12
• Van Nuys 2
• Pomona 1
• Riverside 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.

• 7 for the applicant
• 6 returned for more record
• 5 for the defense

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.

• ADJ11351201 · 2026-05-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on February 27, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his eyes, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, fingers, legs, ankles, circulatory and excretory system, and psyche and ordered that applicant take nothing on his claims.

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to resolve conflicting medical opinions on industrial causation, including orthopedic, neurological, and psychiatric claims, requiring further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11200520 · 2025-12-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Before addressing the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration, we note that applicant does not allege error in the WCJ's findings that she did not sustain specific injury in case number ADJ12140721 or cumulative injury to the psyche in case number ADJ11200520. Since those issues are not raised, they are waived. (See Lab. Code, § 5502(e)(3);2 see also Gould v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1059 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 157], Griffith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1260 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 145].) Accordingly, we will substitute findings that leave those determinations undisturbed.

  Applicant did not allege error in the WCJ's finding of no specific injury on this date, thus waiving the issue.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ19613976 · 2025-11-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision" (Findings) issued on August 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicants' claim of death benefits was barred by Labor Code1 section 5406(b) because applicant failed to file a claim for death benefits within one year from the date of decedent's death.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in barring the claim solely on the statute of limitations without evidence of notice to the applicant and without establishing the date of injury. The Board granted reconsideration and returned the matter for further proceedings to develop the record on these issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18397268 · 2025-01-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, defendant agreed to Dr. Rubanenko as the PQME, and Dr Rubanenko already issued his PQME Report based on this agreement. (App. Ex. A, pp. 1-4; App. Ex. 3, p. 1.) Therefore, defendant cannot choose a different PQME at such a late stage of the QME process.

  Defendant agreed to use Dr. Rubanenko as PQME and did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal; reconsideration is adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10947203 · 2024-12-27 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The Order was based on the WCJ's determination that applicant "failed to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on November 4, 2021..." but the record does not support this finding. Applicant's attorney was present, representing applicant, at the November 4, 2021 MSC, and at the August 12 and September 23, 2021 status conferences cited in the NIT. Applicant's attorney's appearance at each proceeding met the requirement that an applicant, "...shall appear or have an attorney or non-attorney representative appear at all hearings pertaining to the case in chief." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752 (a), emphasis added).) Moreover, applicant "appeared" at each proceeding, pursuant to the definition of "appearance" as "a party or their representative's presence, pursuant to Labor Code section 5700, at any hearing." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10305 (c), emphasis added.) Thus, the determination that applicant "failed to appear," which the WCJ relied upon in issuing the Order is incorrect. The WCJ's reference to WCAB Rule 10755 is similarly incorrect. That Rule, which addresses only the situation where "a required party, after notice, fails to appear" at an MSC, is inapplicable here, when applicant was represented by counsel at the MSC and thus did not fail to appear. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10755.)

  The dismissal order was invalid because the applicant was represented by counsel at the mandatory settlement conference, which constitutes an appearance under the applicable rules, and the notice of intention to dismiss did not meet due process requirements including proper naming and adequate notice.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10356751 · 2024-06-12 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.16We disagree with defendant's contention that Dr. Brazina's February 14, 2017 report limits the industrial injury to applicant's cervical and lumbar spine and left shoulder set forth by the "Diagnoses." As we have explained, Dr. Brazina's report indicates that applicant should be provided heel cups for her plantar fasciitis on an industrial basis even though it is reported under "Work Restrictions" and not "Diagnoses." Therefore, Dr. Brazina's report does not limit the industrial injury to applicant's cervical and lumbar spine and left shoulder. (Place, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 378; Garza, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 317-319; Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at pp. 620- 621.)

  The Board agreed with the WCJ's findings based on Dr. Brazina's opinion and the entire record that applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck, back and left shoulder, deferring injury to other body parts for further development.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ11410257 · 2023-10-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Code, § 5705 ["The burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue."].) Therefore, the burden of proof rests with the employer to produce evidence that applicant was convicted under section 1871.4, and thus, pursuant to section 1871.5, its liability for compensation "owed or received as a result of" that conviction should be reduced or barred. Here, the WCJ did not conduct a full Tensfeldt analysis; instead, she concluded that applicant did not sustain industrial injury based on the lack of substantial evidence. (See Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.

  The WCJ found no industrial injury based on lack of substantial evidence, but the Appeals Board found the WCJ did not conduct a full Tensfeldt analysis or address admissibility of Dr. Smith's report, and further record development may be appropriate.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10546340 · 2022-11-14 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, Dr. Sherman repeatedly requested that he be provided the Mission Community Hospital treatment records and applicant's personnel records including witness statements. Absent his review of those records, his reports are not based on pertinent facts and an accurate history, so they do not constitute substantial evidence. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).)

  Dr. Sherman's reports were not based on complete records and thus did not constitute substantial evidence; the record must be further developed including personnel and hospital records; the Labor Code section 5402 presumption applicability must also be determined.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11385647 · 2022-02-15 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3We first note, as the WCJ stated in the Report, Dr. Hohl and Dr. Yousefi each took a complete history, reviewed medical records, examined applicant, and explained the basis for their opinions. Applicant's disagreement with the doctors' conclusions do not make them invalid or render them to be not substantial evidence. "Applicant had the opportunity to question the doctors about their findings, but depositions were not scheduled." (Report, p. 4.) Thus, we agree that the reports are substantial evidence and we will not disturb the WCJ's Finding that applicant did not sustain the orthopedic injuries as claimed.

  The WCJ and WCAB found the QME reports by Dr. Hohl and Dr. Yousefi to be substantial evidence that applicant did not sustain orthopedic injuries AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10045593 · 2021-09-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) Findings and Order of July 6, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his trunk, hand, back, leg, upper extremity, lower extremity and psyche while employed as an automobile mechanic during a cumulative period ending on July 10, 2016.1

  The WCAB found the WCJ's credibility findings insufficiently material and noted the need for further development of the record, including clarifications on medical evidence and apportionment analysis, thus remanding the case for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11200520 · 2026-03-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on December 4, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition for reconsideration, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14092813 · 2023-10-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4(1) Allowing, disallowing or dismissing a lien;.... (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832(a)(1).) Here, after the Lien claimant filed its Petition for Costs, the WCJ needed to issue a notice of intention (NIT) pursuant to WCAB Rule 10832. Here, the WCJ failed to issue a NIT in response to the Lien claimant's Petition for Costs, and instead on July 27, 2023, issued an Order without holding a hearing. Further, there were no minutes of hearing filed nor testimony taken and the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence relied on when making the decision to issue the Order. Thus, we are unable to perform meaningful review or evaluate the basis of the Order without an evidentiary record. Therefore, we must grant reconsideration, rescind the Order, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. Upon return to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ hold a hearing to allow the parties to frame the issues and any stipulations, submit exhibits as evidence, call witnesses, if necessary, lodge any objections, and make their legal arguments. Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, rescind the Order, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The WCJ failed to issue a notice of intention and did not hold a hearing or provide a summary of evidence, preventing meaningful review and evaluation of the order's basis, requiring reconsideration and remand for further proceedings.

  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.

• LAW OFFICES OF TELLERIA, TELLERIA & LEVY, LLP
• LAW OFFICES OF TELLERIA, TELLERIA & LEVY
• Telleria, Telleria & Levy
• TELLERIA TELLERIA & LEVY
• Law Offices of Telleria, Telleria & Levy
• Telleria, Telleria & Levy, LLP
• TELLERIA, TELLERIA & LEVY, LLP
• TELLERIA TELLERIA & LEVY LLP
• TELLERIA, TELLIA & LEVY, LLP
• TELLERIA, TELLERIA & LEVY
• TELERIA, TELLERIA & LEVY

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.