Berkowitz & Cohen

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 28
• Oxnard 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.

• 13 for the defense
• 11 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 26 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.

• ADJ19532643 · 2026-05-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7At trial, when the Applicant was presented with this deposition testimony, she explained that she may have misspoken at the deposition, and that it was more a desire to retire just from CVS, (MOH/SOE page 6, lines 12-14). She stated that she is planning to renew her pharmaceutical license, and that as of the date of trial, she was taking the necessary classes towards that end, (MOH/SOE page 5, lines 9-12). She further testified that a job in the pharmaceutical field was offered to her sometime in April or May of 2024, but due to her shoulder injury, she did not accept it, and that she does not [at this time] feel comfortable returning to the work force, (MOH/SOE page 5, lines 17-25). She is currently looking online for work opportunities, and testified that when she retired from CVS, she told management that she was intending to retire from that company only, (MOH/SOE page 6, lines 1-5). No witnesses from management at CVS provided testimony contradicting the last statement.

  The WCJ found applicant intended to retire only from the employer, not the labor market entirely, supported by credible trial testimony showing willingness to work post-retirement despite injury, and no contrary evidence from defendant.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11705702 · 2026-02-02 · Marina Del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7As far as any possible apportionment to the Applicant's thoracic spine disability, the AME, in one of his many cross examinations, testified that "just the fact that there is a pathology issue in the adjacent area, I don't think warrants apportionment as a compensable consequence. There were no symptoms of the thoracic spine for many years despite prior documentation of the neck and low back symptoms until the significant injury in 2018, which has rendered him unable to work." (See Exhibit FF on page 53, lines 19-25). The AME goes on to opine that "Had it not been for the 2018 injury, I cannot say that he would have developed pain in the thoracic region because for many years he was working full despite the neck and low back condition without the onset of mid-back pain." (See Exhibit EE on page 54, lines 3 § 7). Therefore, the court found that there was new and further disability to the Applicant's thoracic spine, not subject to any apportionment.

  The court found new and further disability to the thoracic spine based on credible testimony and objective findings; the sub rosa video did not contradict the work restrictions or the impairment rating.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ6508173 · 2026-01-16 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations in applicant's Petition and defendant's Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report with respect thereto. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&A, and substitute a new F&A that finds that applicant sustained injury to her lungs, upper digestive system (in the form of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), psyche and in the form of a sleep disorder, but not in the form of METs because it is a measure of functional limitation and not a separate body part; and to defer the issue of permanent disability, apportionment and attorney fees, and the issue of whether the increase under section 4658(d) applies.

  The Board found injury to lungs, upper digestive system (GERD), psyche, and sleep disorder but not to METs, which is a measure of functional limitation, not a body part. The issue of permanent disability, apportionment, and the 15% increase under section 4658(d) was deferred for further development due to incomplete medical opinion and need for further record development.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10155367 · 2025-10-27 · Marina del Rey District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814mixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 21, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that defendant's attorney's correspondence dated October 30, 2024 did not violate Labor Code section1 5813; defendant did not delay a qualified medical evaluator (QME)'s exam in ophthalmology in violation of section 5814; that there is no violation of section 5813 or section 5814 and that no attorney fees are to be awarded per section 5813 and/or section 5814.5; and that no costs or sanctions will be allowed against the applicant's attorney as a result of seeking a supplemental QME report from Dr. Weingarten and/or a supplemental additional panel in ophthalmology.

  The WCJ found no unreasonable delay by defendant in authorizing medical evaluations and no bad faith or frivolous tactics by defendant's attorney in correspondence; however, the WCAB deferred the issue of costs and sanctions against applicant's attorney for further findings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17343281 · 2025-04-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Although applicant and defendant framed the issues of temporary disability indemnity and attorney's fees for trial, the WCJ issued no findings of fact as to these issues. Instead, the WCJ awarded applicant temporary disability indemnity in a manner which determined an issue neither raised nor submitted for decision: whether defendant may take a credit for any reimbursement payments it may have made to EDD.

  The WCJ issued an award on temporary disability and attorney's fees without findings of fact on these issues and precluded defendant from pursuing a credit for reimbursements to EDD, which was not raised for trial. The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and returned the matter for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ1556152 · 2025-02-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility Intercare for Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, in liquidation (CIGA) both seek reconsideration of the November 14, 2024 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that in ADJ1556152, in relevant part, applicant is entitled to 90 percent permanent disability after the application of apportionment pursuant to Labor Code1 sections 4663 and 4664.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review whether apportionment was properly applied and deferred final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12181367 · 2025-01-15 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, we agree with the WCJ that nothing in the governing statues or regulations appears to per se require defendant to provide investigative and witness logs that correspond to sub rosa surveillance it intends to forward to the AME along with the surveillance videos themselves. Nor do any of the cases cited in the Petition directly involve the statutory and regulatory provisions at issue here. Accordingly, the failure to serve those logs on applicant does not compel a finding that the sub rosa surveillance must be suppressed.

  Defendant's failure to provide investigator and witness logs does not require exclusion of the sub rosa video absent a genuine dispute as to authenticity or relevance; applicant may still object and seek discovery.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10534368 · 2024-10-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on July 17, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained industrial injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his cervical spine, elbows, wrists, left knee, ankles hypertensive heart disease, arrhythmia, psyche, and left arm while employed by the defendant, causing permanent total disability of 100%, less reasonable attorney's fees of 18%.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16231186 · 2024-09-27 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7II. Applicant contends that the WCJ erroneously failed to find that the microdiscectomy surgical procedure in the May 10, 2023 RFA is reasonable and necessary. Specifically, applicant contends that Dr. Nussbaum's reporting of applicant's symptomatology against the applicable criteria demonstrates that microdiscectomy surgery is reasonably required to cure or relieve her from the effects of injury. We observe that Labor Code section 46001 provides that an employer must provide "[m]edical, surgical, chiropractic, acupuncture, and hospital treatment, including nursing, medicines, medical and surgical supplies, crutches, and apparatuses, including orthotic and prosthetic devices and services, that is reasonably required to cure or relieve the injured worker from the effects of his or her injury." (§ 4600 (a).)

  The Appeals Board found that the applicant met the MTUS criteria for the microdiscectomy surgery based on substantial medical evidence from Dr. Nussbaum, despite initial denials and contrary opinions from other physicians, and ordered the surgery to be granted.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ1424684 · 2024-08-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, amend the F&A in ADJ1556152 and the F&O in ADJ1424684 to find that future medical treatment for applicant's back and right leg shall be by defendant Clarendon (Finding of Fact 8 (ADJ1424684) Finding of Fact 12 (ADJ1556152)), and we will defer the issue of calculation of the award and of attorney's fees in ADJ1556152 (Findings of Fact 11 and 13), and otherwise affirm the F&A in ADJ1556152 and the F&Os in ADJ1424684 and ADJ11379405.

  The WCAB amended the findings to assign sole responsibility for future medical treatment of the back and right leg to Clarendon, excluding Hani/CIGA from this responsibility.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13628082 · 2023-12-08 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Texas; as a result, the airport that applicant will fly into is LAX, which is nearest the Marina del Rey board; and that there will likely be no employer witnesses at trial. On August 9, 2023, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Grant Petition to Change Venue. Defendant filed an Objection to the Change of Venue on August 24, 2023, providing its own reasons why the venue should not be changed. Without issuing an opinion on decision or holding a hearing, the WCJ issued the Order Denying Change of Venue on August 30, 2023, based on defendant's objection setting forth good cause. The WCJ failed to address applicant's alleged good cause.

  The WCJ denied the change of venue based on defendant's objection, but failed to address applicant's alleged good cause. The Appeals Board found the record insufficient as the WCJ did not issue an opinion on decision or hold a hearing, and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8185944 · 2023-09-18 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that none of the QMEs reporting in this matter offers a substantial apportionment analysis. As is observed in Escobedo, supra, "[e]ven where a medical report `addresses' the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding the approximate relative percentages of industrial and non-industrial causation under section 4663(a), the report may not be relied upon unless it also constitutes substantial evidence." (Escobedo, supra, at 620.) None of the apportionment analyses herein adequately explains the mechanism for how the identified factors of apportionment are contributing to applicant's present permanent disability, or sets forth its reasoning with particularity. (Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases __ [2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 46, *5] (Nunes) ("In order to constitute substantial evidence the opinions of both the evaluating physician as well as the vocational expert must detail the history and evidence in support of their respective conclusions, including "how and why" a condition or factor is causing permanent disability.").)

  None of the apportionment analyses by the QMEs constituted substantial evidence as they failed to explain how and why the identified factors contributed to the applicant's present permanent disability, entitling the applicant to an unapportioned award.

  Official decision · page 8 →

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.

• BERKOWITZ AND COHEN
• BERKOWITZ & COHEN
• Berkowitz & Cohen
• BERKOWITZ AND COHEN, APC
• BERKOWITZ & COHEN, APC
• Berkowitz and Cohen
• LAW OFFICES OF BERKOWITZ & COHEN
• Law Offices of Berkowitz & Cohen
• Law Office of Berkowitz & Cohen
• LAW OFFICES OF BERKOWITZ COHEN
• BERKOWITZ COHEN

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.