California WCABLaw firm

The Hanover Law Office

The Hanover Law Office is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Cumulative trauma (1) and QME/AME process (1). They were heard most often at Marina del Rey, then Pomona. The firm it meets most often is Hinden & Breslavsky (1).

Decisions: 9
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 7

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 of 8 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

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

Who they face

4 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Marina del Rey 2
Pomona 2
Goleta 1
Los Angeles 1
Oakland 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.

7 for the defense

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.

ADJ18473989 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, administered by The Hanover Insurance Group seeks removal based on the October 29, 2024 Finding and Order (served by the WCJ on November 13, 2024) Re: Additional QME Panel, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the medical record in this case requires further development in the form of an additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in the medical specialty of psychiatry. For the reasons given herein, we will grant the petition and return the case to the trial level for further proceedings.
The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking the necessary evidence to support the WCJ's order for an additional QME panel in psychiatry, thus granting removal and rescinding the order.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12320337 · 2024-04-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeCumulative traumamixed
Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of October 11, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, while employed by Johnny Was, LLC during the period October 1, 2012 through May 28, 2019, sustained a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment ("industrial injury") to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, knees, shoulders, elbows and wrists, and that applicant, while employed by Johnny Was, LLC during the period May 28, 2018 through May 29, 2019, sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury to her psyche.
The WCAB found the cumulative trauma injury period to be October 1, 2012 through May 28, 2019 for orthopedic injuries, but amended the psyche injury date to be the same as the orthopedic injury date based on medical opinion and evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ20158793 · 2026-04-07 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on February 11, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18598754 · 2026-03-18 · Goleta District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1Thereafter on February 25, 2026, the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement. As the issue raised is now moot, we will dismiss the petition for removal.
The issue raised by the petition for removal became moot after the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18990965 · 2026-02-12 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on December 2, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis and the record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14214237 · 2025-09-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal1 from the order taking the matter off calendar that issued on October 10, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The WCJ's analysis found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy, so removal was denied.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12765398 · 2023-09-01 · Oakland 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 removal 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 →
ADJ11729082 · 2022-08-09 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Twin City Fire Insurance Company, administered by the Hartford (Hartford) has filed a May 10, 2022 petition for removal from the WCJ's April 20, 2022 minute order setting this matter for Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). Co-defendant Citizens Insurance Company of America, administered by Hanover Insurance Group (Hanover) has also filed a May 10, 2022 petition for removal from the same minute order. On May 25, 2022, the matter was ordered taken off calendar by the WCJ. As a result, both Petitions for Removal have been rendered moot and will be dismissed.
The petitions for removal were rendered moot when the matter was taken off calendar by the WCJ on May 25, 2022, and thus were dismissed. The Board also noted that a response filed by defendant Hartford without leave was not considered.
Official decision · page 1 →

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.

THE HANOVER LAW OFFICE
The Hanover Law Office
HANOVER LAW GROUP

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 →

The Hanover Law Office

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

7 for the defense

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.

ADJ18473989 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, administered by The Hanover Insurance Group seeks removal based on the October 29, 2024 Finding and Order (served by the WCJ on November 13, 2024) Re: Additional QME Panel, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the medical record in this case requires further development in the form of an additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in the medical specialty of psychiatry. For the reasons given herein, we will grant the petition and return the case to the trial level for further proceedings.

The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking the necessary evidence to support the WCJ's order for an additional QME panel in psychiatry, thus granting removal and rescinding the order.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12320337 · 2024-04-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeCumulative traumamixed

Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of October 11, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, while employed by Johnny Was, LLC during the period October 1, 2012 through May 28, 2019, sustained a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment ("industrial injury") to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, knees, shoulders, elbows and wrists, and that applicant, while employed by Johnny Was, LLC during the period May 28, 2018 through May 29, 2019, sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury to her psyche.

The WCAB found the cumulative trauma injury period to be October 1, 2012 through May 28, 2019 for orthopedic injuries, but amended the psyche injury date to be the same as the orthopedic injury date based on medical opinion and evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ20158793 · 2026-04-07 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on February 11, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18598754 · 2026-03-18 · Goleta District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

Determinative passage · p.1Thereafter on February 25, 2026, the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement. As the issue raised is now moot, we will dismiss the petition for removal.

The issue raised by the petition for removal became moot after the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18990965 · 2026-02-12 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on December 2, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis and the record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14214237 · 2025-09-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal1 from the order taking the matter off calendar that issued on October 10, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The WCJ's analysis found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy, so removal was denied.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12765398 · 2023-09-01 · Oakland 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 removal 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 →

ADJ11729082 · 2022-08-09 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Twin City Fire Insurance Company, administered by the Hartford (Hartford) has filed a May 10, 2022 petition for removal from the WCJ's April 20, 2022 minute order setting this matter for Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). Co-defendant Citizens Insurance Company of America, administered by Hanover Insurance Group (Hanover) has also filed a May 10, 2022 petition for removal from the same minute order. On May 25, 2022, the matter was ordered taken off calendar by the WCJ. As a result, both Petitions for Removal have been rendered moot and will be dismissed.

The petitions for removal were rendered moot when the matter was taken off calendar by the WCJ on May 25, 2022, and thus were dismissed. The Board also noted that a response filed by defendant Hartford without leave was not considered.

Official decision · page 1 →