Chernow & Lieb

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Fresno 7
• Santa Ana 7
• Anaheim 4
• Stockton 4
• Bakersfield 3
• Riverside 2
• Sacramento 2
• San Diego 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Long Beach 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 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.

• 18 for the defense
• 17 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 39 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.

• ADJ11995067 · 2025-07-25 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 9, 2022. The WCJ found that while employed on March 1, 2019 as a dry cleaning assistant by defendant, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head, face, and neck and claims injury to various body parts; that Dr. Marcel Ponton was the medical-legal evaluator pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.32; that his report was obtained in violation of section 4062.3; that his report was struck and inadmissible in all further proceedings. She ordered that Dr. Ponton was replaced as the medical-legal neuropsychological evaluator and that the parties should select a new evaluator to conduct a complete medical-legal neuropsychological assessment.

  The Appeals Board found that Dr. Ponton was a treating physician selected from the employer's MPN and not a qualified medical evaluator selected from a panel, so section 4062.3 does not apply to him.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11713524 · 2024-11-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded

  Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, we will rescind the F&O, and substitute findings that applicant's Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is December 2, 2020, and that the issue of whether applicant sustained separate cumulative injuries during his employment with defendant and his subsequent employment with All-Time Maintenance is deferred. We make no changes to Findings 1, 2 and 3. We will return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The Appeals Board found that the applicant's date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is December 2, 2020, based on medical confirmation by QME Dr. Viswanath, and that the issue of separate cumulative injuries with subsequent employer All-Time Maintenance is deferred due to lack of joinder and undeveloped record.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ6579284 · 2024-11-05 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2ultimately may be entitled to an award of 75% permanent disability, we conclude that the WCJ

  The Board concluded that the WCJ must revisit the issue of potential liability and jurisdiction over all teams who employed applicant during the cumulative trauma period, including the Detroit Lions, St. Louis Rams, and Denver Broncos, as the prior findings of insufficient contacts and dismissal of the Denver Broncos were premature and require further development of the record and consideration of due process and substantial justice interests.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ8671084 · 2024-05-31 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find merit in defendant's contention that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction over this dispute because its essence is the reasonable value of Dr. Nathan's services, not coding or the rectitude of defendant's EORs as suggested by the WCJ. We also conclude that it is appropriate to allow this matter to proceed to IBR. Accordingly, we will rescind the WCJ's decision and replace it with a decision reflecting the above conclusions.

  The WCAB found that the dispute was over the reasonable value of Dr. Nathan's services and thus subject to Independent Bill Review, not WCAB jurisdiction, rescinding the WCJ's decision.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10110126 · 2024-05-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.16as a professional athlete, Occupational Group No. 590, by the Atlanta Falcons, New Orleans Saints, Pittsburgh Steelers, the Los Angeles Rams, and the St. Louis Rams, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to head, neck, shoulders, hands, wrists, fingers, elbows, back, hips, knees, ankles, feet, toes, neurological, internal, sleep, psyche, and chronic pain. 2. At the time of the claimed injury, the workers' compensation carriers for the various employers were: (1) Great Divide Insurance, administered by Berkley Entertainment for the Atlanta Falcons; (2) Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation for the New Orleans Saints; (3) State Workers Insurance Fund for the Pittsburgh Steelers; (4) California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance, in liquidation for the Los Angeles Rams; (5) Fairmont by Zenith for the St. Louis Rams; and, (6) Travelers Insurance also for the St. Louis Rams. 3. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury. 4. The conferral of jurisdiction arising out of applicant's California contract of hire precludes the enforcement of choice of law/forum selection clauses. 5. The issue of whether compensation is barred by Labor Code section 5405 is deferred.

  The issue of whether compensation is barred by section 5405 is deferred pending further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ8202033 · 2024-05-03 · Fresno District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.74th 480, 492-493) Thus, if a party wishes to set aside or otherwise modify an order of the WCAB that has been entered as a judgement in the Superior Court, the only venue to modify such an order is through the WCAB. The problem with the F&O in this matter is that the WCJ went beyond the question of jurisdiction and, in effect, decided whether good cause existed to set aside or modify the order of contribution. That issue was not raised at trial and we make no decision on the merits at this time. Upon return, the parties may submit the issue of Liberty Mutual's request to set aside the order of contribution and the WCJ may issue findings of fact accordingly. Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration we will rescind the January 21, 2021 F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction over workers' compensation orders even after entry as a Superior Court judgment; Superior Courts have limited enforcement authority but no power to modify or vacate such orders; the WCJ erred by deciding merits beyond jurisdiction question; matter must return to trial level for further proceedings on merits.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12479931 · 2024-03-26 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders, and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued on May 21, 2021, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant's injury on April 23, 2019 arose out of and was in the course of her employment (AOE/COE) with defendant and was not barred by the going and coming rule.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the applicant was required to use her personal vehicle to travel between fields and transport tools, and the accident occurred during a left turn into the place of employment, fitting the special risk and required vehicle exceptions to the going and coming rule.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9146501 · 2023-02-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant appears to have played four games in California during the course of his professional career, and also testified to participating in practices during a fifth trip to California, though he did not actually play in that game. Applicant does not appear to contest the WCJ's finding that he played in at least 146 games across his career, each with their own associated practices.3 Therefore, even viewing matters in the light most favorable to applicant, it appears that his total California exposure amounts to at best approximately 3% of his total playing career almost exactly the same percentage as in Johnson, where one game out of 34 also represented roughly 3% of the injury exposure the Johnson Court considered.

  The applicant's cumulative trauma injury exposure in California was only about 3% of his total career, insufficient to establish a significant connection to California for jurisdiction under Johnson, and the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10019220 · 2022-11-03 · Fresno District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant, Citywide Scanning Service, Inc. petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Order, and Opinion on Decision issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on February 5, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ Ordered that the lien claimant take nothing further on their lien as it failed in its affirmative duty to utilize its administrative remedies and request a second bill review.

  The lien claimant failed to utilize administrative remedies initially, but the parties later resolved the dispute by stipulation for payment, which the WCAB approved.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7762424 · 2022-05-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Travelers argues that, because, at the time the First Horizon policy was written, First Horizon was not an admitted insurer licensed to write workers' compensation insurance in California, the Saints did not fulfil their obligation to "secure the payment of compensation" pursuant to Labor Code section 3700 and, accordingly, the Saints were illegally uninsured despite the existence of the First Horizon policy.

  The First Horizon policy did not provide valid workers' compensation coverage in California as it was not issued by a licensed insurer authorized to write such policies in California, and the Saints failed to secure payment of compensation as required by law, making them illegally uninsured during the relevant period.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11046834 · 2022-04-12 · San Diego District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order (F&A), dated February 7, 2020, served February 10, 2020, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a police officer from November 3, 2004 to September 11, 2017, sustained industrial injury to her low back, with the need for further medical care to cure or relive from the effects of the industrial injury. (F&A, p.4, Award No.1.) The WCJ made no specific findings regarding permanent disability or apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10418232 · 2022-04-07 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.17We are mindful that discerning legislative intent is fraught with difficulty when the statute does not clearly speak for itself. However, for all the reasons referenced above, we believe the most reasonable interpretation of section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) is that they are intended to apply only to athletes who cannot establish jurisdiction under section 3600.5, subdivision (a) or section 5305. Because it is undisputed that applicant was hired in California multiple times during the cumulative trauma injury period, we may properly exercise jurisdiction over his claim pursuant to those sections, and we will reverse the WCJ's finding to the contrary, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The Board concluded that subdivisions (c) and (d) of Labor Code section 3600.5 do not apply because the applicant was hired in California multiple times during the injury period, establishing jurisdiction under subdivision (a) and section 5305.

  Official decision · page 17 →

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.

• CHERNOW & LIEB
• CHERNOW LIEB
• CHERNOW AND LIEB
• Chernow & Lieb
• Chernow and Lieb
• Chernow Lieb

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.