Chernow, Pine and Williams

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Fresno 6
• Anaheim 5
• Sacramento 5
• Riverside 4
• Van Nuys 4
• Los Angeles 3
• Oakland 2
• Redding 2
• San Francisco 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Lodi 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.

• 25 for the defense
• 15 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 44 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.

• ADJ16567838 · 2026-03-13 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the evidence demonstrates that the going and coming rule was inapplicable because the applicant did not participate in a "local commute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours," as required for the rule to apply. First, his commute does not fit within the definition of "local"2 since applicant testified that he traveled in the van for an hour or more in each direction, from Yuba City, California, located in Sutter County, to Winters, California, located in Yolo County. (3/4/24 Transcript of Record, at pp. 27-28.) As the Court noted, the distance from the work site to applicant's home in Yuba City "was approximately 60 miles" and thus outside the definition of "local." (the applicant, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1169.)

  Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the going and coming rule applies because applicant's commute was not local, did not have fixed hours, and defendant's evidence was unreliable.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8371384 · 2025-11-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5On August 18, 2025, the WCJ issued a Joint Findings & Orders and Opinion on Decision. As relevant herein, the WCJ found that none of the lien claimants met their burden of proof to recover on their liens.

  The WCJ initially found lien claimants did not meet burden of proof for reasonable medical treatment, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and granted reconsideration for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ20699429 · 2025-09-15 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the crux of the issue is whether applicant was a seasonal employee or a regular employee, that is, one with the expectation of continued employment because the determination affects calculation of applicant's AWW and temporary disability rate. For the reasons detailed below, we find the preponderance of the evidence does support the WCJ's finding that applicant was not a seasonal employee.

  The Appeals Board found the preponderance of the evidence supported the WCJ's finding that applicant was not a seasonal employee and had a reasonable expectation of continued employment, based on credible testimony and lack of evidence that applicant was informed of seasonal or temporary status.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ17889850 · 2025-07-07 · San Bernardino District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Further, applicant showed good cause why his case should not be dismissed, as required by the NIT. In the Affidavit, applicant stated that he had previously changed his phone number and forgot to inform his attorney and that he was dealing with some personal hardships that distracted him. (Affidavit, p. 1.) He further stated that he did not intend to abandon or stop pursuing his case and that he was unaware that his lack of communication could lead to dismissal of his claim. (Affidavit, p. 1.) He had reestablished communication with his attorney on or around January 9, 2025, and was committed to actively participating in the legal process going forward. (Affidavit, pp. 1-2.) This verified Affidavit from applicant shows good cause not to dismiss applicant's case.

  Applicant cured the defect of lack of verification by filing a verified affidavit; applicant showed good cause for inactivity; due process requires the case be heard on the merits.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10490434 · 2025-06-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Following Trial, post-Trial argument and submission for decision, Joint Findings of Fact and Joint Award issued on March 10, 2025. Among other things, Applicant was found to have sustained 82% permanent partial disability as a result of the combined effect of the five industrial injuries. Apportionment between the injuries was denied in reliance on the expert opinion of Internal Medicine QME Dr. Benjamin Simon. Consistent with the findings, permanent partial disability indemnity and a Life Pension were awarded. Joint Findings of Fact & Joint Award 3/10/2025 p. 4 (Finding of Fact #6), p. 5 (Joint Award), pp. 8-10 (Opinion on Decision).

  The WCJ relied on the expert opinion of Internal Medicine QME Dr. Benjamin Simon, who found the hypertension disability was inextricably intertwined across all injuries and could not be apportioned by date of injury with reasonable medical probability, leading to denial of apportionment and a single joint and several award.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10675931 · 2025-06-18 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5On this record, we discern no violation of our Rules or other statutory prohibition that would preclude the QME's review of sub rosa video. Accordingly, we will grant defendant's petition, rescind the F&O, and substitute a new finding of fact that defendant may submit the surveillance video dated December 1, 2022, December 9, 2022, December 14, 2022, February 16, 2023, February 21, 2023, and February 22, 2023, to QME Dr. Oehlschlaeger.

  The WCAB found no violation of rules or statutes precluding submission of sub rosa video to the QME and concluded defendant complied with the procedural requirements, warranting granting the petition for removal and allowing submission of the video.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ7763838 · 2025-05-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In the instant matter, defendant Zenith is taking the position that the December 15, 2009 report of Dr. Nelson (Exhibit X1) sufficiently put CIGA on notice of the existence of a cumulative trauma claim so as to establish that same date as the § 5412 date of injury. Zenith argues that CIGA is a sophisticated party, and that therefore, the language in Dr. Nelson's report was sufficient to place it on notice of the potential existence of applicant's cumulative trauma injury.

  The court found that the December 15, 2009 report of Dr. Nelson did not provide sufficient knowledge to fix the date of injury for cumulative trauma. The first report that clearly defined the cumulative trauma injury was the November 17, 2010 report, establishing the §5412 date of injury. The application filed on April 27, 2011 was timely under the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18217235 · 2025-04-29 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In Sanchez, the injured manager also claimed not to have read the waiver, but the arbitrator correctly found that "He is presumed to have read what he signed and he should be bound by its terms." (Id. at p. *8.) Although the arbitrator in Sanchez also stated that the manager had the terms of the waiver explained, that additional fact was not essential to the holding. Applicant filed a valid waiver of workers' compensation coverage excluding him from the definition of employee. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the arbitrator's decision and issue a new decision finding that applicant was not an employee pursuant to Labor Code section 3352(a)(17) and thus excluded from workers' compensation coverage. Since applicant's only argument for not applying the express waiver was the fact that he did not read it, we not need discuss the contours and limits, if any, of the conclusive presumption codified in section 3352(a)(17).

  The applicant executed a valid written waiver of workers' compensation rights, excluding him from coverage under the policy. The waiver is conclusive under Labor Code section 3352(a)(17), and the applicant's subjective intent or failure to read the waiver does not invalidate it.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11706407 · 2025-04-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that the record is clear as to whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion applies. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

  The WCAB found that the issues of jurisdiction and res judicata were not clearly resolved in the prior order and that reconsideration was necessary to fully study the factual and legal issues.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10991851 · 2025-04-03 · Marina del Rey District OfficeStatute of limitationsdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.6In this case, the WCJ did not determine when applicant (1) had knowledge sufficient to establish that she either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that her disability was caused by her employment; and (2) first suffered disability based upon medical evidence indicating when the cumulative effect of her injury ripened into disability. (See Lab. Code, § 5412; see also Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. 221 Cal.App.4th 1116 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257].

  The WCJ did not make the necessary factual determinations to establish the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury, so the issue was deferred for further development.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ19073561 · 2025-03-17 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4II. Turning now to the merits of the Petition, it is well established that the employee bears the burden of proof in establishing injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) Section 3600(a)(7), however, bars an employee's claim for compensation where the injury arises out of an altercation in which the injured employee is the initial physical aggressor. Since it is defendant here who claims this defense, it is defendant's burden to establish that applicant was in fact the initial physical aggressor. (Lab. Code, § 5705 ["burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue"].) The case of Mathews v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 719 [37 Cal. Comp. Cases 124, 127-128] provides some guidance as to the applicability of the initial aggressor defense. In Mathews, the court held that section 3600(a)(7) bars recovery only when two conditions are present: first, the injury for which workmen's compensation benefits is sought must "arise out of an altercation," second, the injured employee must be the "initial physical aggressor" in that altercation. (Mathews, supra, at p.

  Defendant failed to prove applicant was the initial physical aggressor; evidence showed the other driver was at fault and the defense must be narrowly construed.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14970948 · 2024-12-16 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10In summary, we agree with applicant that Dr. Gillis was not retained for the sole purpose of rebutting the opinions of a QME who had not yet issued a report. We therefore grant reconsideration and amend the F&O to admit the February 17, 2022 report of Dr. Gillis into evidence. However, having weighed the reporting of consulting physician Dr. Gillis against that of QME Dr. Allems, we decline to disturb the WCJ's reliance on the reporting of QME Dr. Allems as the more thorough and persuasive. Thus, we affirm the WCJ's determination that applicant did not sustain the burden of establishing that decedent sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

  The Appeals Board admitted Dr. Gillis's report but found the QME Dr. Allems's report more thorough and persuasive, affirming the denial of industrial injury causation.

  Official decision · page 10 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 13.

• CHERNOW, PINE & WILLIAMS
• CHERNOW, PINE AND WILLIAMS
• Chernow, Pine and Williams
• CHERNOW & PINE
• CHERNOW PINE & WILLIAMS
• CHERNOW PINE
• Chernow, Pine & Williams
• Chernow, Pine, and Williams
• CHERNOW PINE AND WILLIAMS
• CHERNOW PINE ORANGE LAW
• Chernow Pine Roseville
• CHERNOW AND PINE

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.