California WCABLaw firm

Anderson Chang Brea Law

Anderson Chang Brea Law is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Cumulative trauma (1) and Psyche AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Van Nuys.

Decisions: 6
Years: 2023–2025
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 4

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

Los Angeles 2
Van Nuys 2
Marina del Rey 1
Santa Ana 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 returned for more record
2 for the defense

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ10959526 · 2025-09-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.7Here, the WCJ's finding that applicant failed to meet his burden of proof that he sustained injury on May 27, 2017 AOE/COE is not supported by any medical evidence. Although we acknowledge the WCJ's reservations regarding applicant's lack of credibility, the WCJ's determination is not dispositive. There is no medical evidence in the record with respect to whether the applicant sustained an industrial injury on May 27, 2017. Applicant was never evaluated by a medical-legal evaluator nor a treating physician regarding the alleged injury. The only medical
The WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to prove injury AOE/COE to the foot and toes on May 27, 2017, is not supported by any medical evidence. The record lacks medical-legal or treating physician evaluation on causation. The WCAB has a duty to develop the record when medical evidence is absent or insufficient, so the matter is remanded for further proceedings to obtain a PQME opinion on causation.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ8923383 · 2025-05-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeCumulative traumadeferred
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant X-Ray Productions petitions for reconsideration of the March 5, 2024 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed during the period of November 22, 1998 through January 1, 2000 did not sustain industrial injury as a result of cumulative trauma. Petitioner contends that the WCJ erred in failing to find a cumulative trauma. Petitioner argues that the evidence presented pursuant to Labor Code sections 5500.5 and 5412 establish a cumulative trauma with an end date of either December 5, 1998 or November 22, 1998. Petitioner also argues that the WCJ denied defendant due process by denying defendant the right to examine witnesses at trial and conduct discovery. Finally, petitioner contends that there is new evidence which should be considered by the WCJ.
The Board did not rule on the merits but rescinded the prior Findings and Order and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings after the parties settled by Compromise and Release.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8923383 · 2024-05-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.5The Applicant was a credible witness who testified he physically did not work for any employer as a production assistant, electrician, or grip after the specific injury of November 22, 1998 (Minutes of Hearing February 2, 2024, page 5, lines 3-6). Although the Applicant was compensated for work until approximately June 1999, the Applicant did not perform any physical work for the employer, but clocked in as he was owed "favors" from work he preformed [sic]on other jobs (Minutes of Hearing February 2, 2024, page 4, lines 13-17).
The WCJ found no compensable cumulative trauma injury because the applicant did not perform physical work after the specific injury date, which is necessary to support a cumulative trauma claim. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the merits and record.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14327332 · 2023-11-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) of August 14, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and during the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of injury to his psyche and ordered that he take nothing.
The WCAB found the WCJ's reliance on the PQME report inadequate due to incomplete medical history and recommended further development of the record to clarify causation and apportionment issues.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10073615 · 2025-10-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Accordingly, we grant removal and as our Decision After Removal,, we amend the May 29, 2024 F&O to indicate that a new panel has issued in both case numbers. All other issues are deferred.
Removal granted to correct case caption and panel issuance; other issues deferred to trial level due to lack of formal record on dismissal claim.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ14742800 · 2024-11-04 · Santa Ana 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.
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.

LAW OFFICES OF ANDERSON & CHANG
LAW OFFICE OF ANDERSON AND CHANG
LAW OFFICE OF ANDERSON & CHANG
Anderson Chang Brea Law
Anderson & Chang

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

3 returned for more record

2 for the defense

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ10959526 · 2025-09-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.7Here, the WCJ's finding that applicant failed to meet his burden of proof that he sustained injury on May 27, 2017 AOE/COE is not supported by any medical evidence. Although we acknowledge the WCJ's reservations regarding applicant's lack of credibility, the WCJ's determination is not dispositive. There is no medical evidence in the record with respect to whether the applicant sustained an industrial injury on May 27, 2017. Applicant was never evaluated by a medical-legal evaluator nor a treating physician regarding the alleged injury. The only medical

The WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to prove injury AOE/COE to the foot and toes on May 27, 2017, is not supported by any medical evidence. The record lacks medical-legal or treating physician evaluation on causation. The WCAB has a duty to develop the record when medical evidence is absent or insufficient, so the matter is remanded for further proceedings to obtain a PQME opinion on causation.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ8923383 · 2025-05-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeCumulative traumadeferred

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant X-Ray Productions petitions for reconsideration of the March 5, 2024 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed during the period of November 22, 1998 through January 1, 2000 did not sustain industrial injury as a result of cumulative trauma. Petitioner contends that the WCJ erred in failing to find a cumulative trauma. Petitioner argues that the evidence presented pursuant to Labor Code sections 5500.5 and 5412 establish a cumulative trauma with an end date of either December 5, 1998 or November 22, 1998. Petitioner also argues that the WCJ denied defendant due process by denying defendant the right to examine witnesses at trial and conduct discovery. Finally, petitioner contends that there is new evidence which should be considered by the WCJ.

The Board did not rule on the merits but rescinded the prior Findings and Order and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings after the parties settled by Compromise and Release.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8923383 · 2024-05-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.5The Applicant was a credible witness who testified he physically did not work for any employer as a production assistant, electrician, or grip after the specific injury of November 22, 1998 (Minutes of Hearing February 2, 2024, page 5, lines 3-6). Although the Applicant was compensated for work until approximately June 1999, the Applicant did not perform any physical work for the employer, but clocked in as he was owed "favors" from work he preformed [sic]on other jobs (Minutes of Hearing February 2, 2024, page 4, lines 13-17).

The WCJ found no compensable cumulative trauma injury because the applicant did not perform physical work after the specific injury date, which is necessary to support a cumulative trauma claim. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the merits and record.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14327332 · 2023-11-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) of August 14, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and during the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of injury to his psyche and ordered that he take nothing.

The WCAB found the WCJ's reliance on the PQME report inadequate due to incomplete medical history and recommended further development of the record to clarify causation and apportionment issues.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10073615 · 2025-10-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Accordingly, we grant removal and as our Decision After Removal,, we amend the May 29, 2024 F&O to indicate that a new panel has issued in both case numbers. All other issues are deferred.

Removal granted to correct case caption and panel issuance; other issues deferred to trial level due to lack of formal record on dismissal claim.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ14742800 · 2024-11-04 · Santa Ana 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.

Official decision · page 1 →