Central Valley Injured Worker Legal Clinic

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Stockton 12
• Lodi 5
• Sacramento 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.

• 10 for the defense
• 4 for the applicant
• 4 returned for more record

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.

• ADJ12963083 · 2026-03-06 · Stockton District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.12Accordingly, given that the WCJ's decision in this case (ADJ12963083) to bar applicant's claim based on the statute of limitations is not based on admitted evidence or substantial evidence, it must be our decision after reconsideration to rescind the F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the record consistent with this decision. We affirm the WCJ's decision to dismiss applicant's claim in ADJ13167130 pursuant to the parties' stipulation.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's decision barring the claim based on statute of limitations was not supported by substantial evidence and rescinded it, returning the matter for further proceedings. The WCJ had found the claim barred because applicant knew or should have known of the injury earlier, but the WCAB found the date of injury to be the QME report date, making the claim timely.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ15539216 · 2025-10-03 · Lodi District OfficeQME/AME processmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Orders" (F&O) issued on June 30, 2025. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that an additional panel in the specialty of spine (MNB) is appropriate to address alleged injury to the back and neck.

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant waived the right to object to Dr. Achackzad as QME and that the request for an additional panel in spine specialty was not sufficiently justified as the existing hand specialty panel could address the orthopedic complaints.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10418270 · 2025-09-09 · Lodi District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Based on the foregoing, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the WCJ's Findings of Fact and substitute new Findings of Fact, which defer the issue of lien claimant's lien for attorney's fees. This matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision, and a new decision from which any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.

  Lien claimant was not required to object to the C&R or seek reconsideration of the OACR to preserve its lien rights; WCJ erred in finding the lien time-barred; issue deferred for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ18451814 · 2025-01-03 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8In this matter, we agree with the WCJ that the presumption of compensability afforded under section 5402 does not apply. In order for an alleged industrial injury to be presumed compensable pursuant to section 5402(b), the applicant must show when defendant received the DWC-1 claim form. Here, there is no evidence applicant ever filed a claim form with the employer, as required by sections 5401(c) and (d). In order to trigger the section 5402(b) presumption of compensability, use of the claim form is mandatory, and the filing of an application is not sufficient to trigger the presumption. As applicant has not demonstrated when the employer received the claim form, the presumption of compensability under section 5402(b) is not applicable. We note, however, that even without the presumption of compensability, applicant is still "free to prove in the ordinary manner his injury's industrial causation." (Wagner, supra, at p. 104.)

  Applicant did not file a claim form as required, so the presumption of compensability under section 5402(b) does not apply, but applicant can still prove injury causation by other evidence.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ1413052 · 2024-11-12 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Applicant also contests the Award of temporary disability. Finding of Fact No. 13 provides for temporary disability from February 22, 2017 through March 1, 2019. Applicant's Petition avers Dr. Fine placed applicant on temporary disability from March, 2019, through February, 2022. (Petition, at p. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision notes, however, that the evidentiary record only documents temporary disability through the March 1, 2019 report of Frank Fine, D.C. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 5.) We note that applicant's Petition offers no citation to the evidentiary record that establishes additional periods of temporary disability. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(b) ["every petition and answer shall support its evidentiary statements by specific references to the record"].) Following our independent review of the record, however, we do not identify any additional periods of temporary disability supported by competent medical evidence, and we do not disturb the WCJ's findings with respect to temporary disability.

  The record did not support additional periods of temporary disability beyond March 1, 2019, as no competent medical evidence was cited for later periods.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10687754 · 2024-07-01 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Orders of July 19, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that on November 10, 2016, applicant was employed by "You Lucky Dog" as a dog groomer, and that on said date applicant sustained industrial injury to his right hand and to the third and fourth digits of his right hand.1 The WCJ also found that applicant's earnings were minimum for purposes of temporary and permanent disability indemnity, but the WCJ deferred the issues of applicant's entitlement to temporary disability benefits and medical treatment.

  The WCJ's finding that applicant was employed by You Lucky Dog when injured is affirmed based on credibility and evidence that applicant was controlled and integrated into the employer's business, including the replacement of the bathtub as part of his duties.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12112432 · 2024-01-11 · Stockton District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation petitions for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on February 28, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained cumulative injury to her right shoulder and elbow arising out of and in the course of her employment as a psychiatric technician by defendant during a period ending October 23, 2018, resulting in permanent partial disability of 13% and need for further medical treatment.

  The WCJ's findings on injury and disability were rescinded and remanded for further proceedings due to the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11113127 · 2023-02-07 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant, who is represented, filed, in pro per, a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration from the Findings of Fact and Order, issued on November 14, 2022, which found that applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his right leg and right foot as part of a cumulative trauma through the last date of his employment in 2017. I further issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice.

  Applicant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury occurred arising out of and in the course of employment; medical evidence showed no cumulative injury through last date of employment; applicant's testimony lacked credibility and was inconsistent with medical records; QME changed opinion to no industrial injury after reviewing prior claims.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11973646 · 2022-12-22 · Stockton District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Applicant who was 47 years old as of the date of injury, as a retail clerk, at Livermore, California, by Ralph Lauren, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her nervous system, back, spine, cardiovascular. 2. At the time of the injury, the employer's workers' compensation carrier was Safety National Casualty Corp. 3. Defendant has demonstrated panel #7411683 was not received. 4. Defendant's strike of Dr. Mahmoudi from panel #7411683 was timely. ORDER a) Defendant's strike of Dr. Mahmoudi from panel #7411683 was timely.

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant's strike of Dr. Mahmoudi was timely and that applicant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the strike being upheld.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13449484 · 2022-12-14 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In this case, Inverse Solutions did not successfully contact their insurer prior to the expiration of the 90-day period from the time the claim form was filed. Inverse Solutions was the sole defendant named on the initial application. There is evidence that Inverse Solutions rejected the claim within 90 days. Josh Jorden's completion of the EDD form indicating that the claim had been denied together with his testimony that he believed that he denied the claim is sufficient to find that the employer rejected the claim within the 90-day period.

  The employer rejected the claim within the 90-day period as evidenced by the EDD form and testimony, so the presumption of compensability does not apply.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11056989 · 2022-01-18 · Stockton District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8After review of the evidence, the Court finds Ratto Law is liable to lien claimant for 60% percent of the attorney fees awarded and received, under the Stipulated Award.

  The WCJ considered the totality of itemizations, descriptions of services, and stipulated periods of representation, finding the division of attorney fees supported by evidence and legal standards.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9930606 · 2021-06-28 · Stockton District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Lien Claim of Prior Attorney. Occupational Injury Law Center

  The Stipulation and Award and/or Order included language 'in full satisfaction of attorney fee lien,' which resolved prior counsel's entitlement to fees. No further work was performed by prior counsel after dismissal, and the document was unambiguous and signed by prior counsel.

  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.

• CENTRAL VALLEY INJURED WORKER LEGAL CLINIC
• CENTRAL VALLEY INJURED WORKER LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
• Central Valley Injured Worker Legal Clinic
• Central Valley Injured Worker Legal Clinic, Inc
• Central Valley Injured Worker Legal Clinic, Inc.
• Central Valley Injured Workers' Legal Clinic
• Central Valley Injured Worker-Legal
• CENTRAL VALLEY LAW
• CENTRAL VALLEY

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.