Chong Legal Group

What they litigate

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

• Cumulative trauma1
• Liens1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 2
• Salinas 2
• Long Beach 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Riverside 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 5 for the defense
• 1 for the applicant

Counted over 6 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.

• ADJ11255137 · 2024-10-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficeCumulative traumadeferred

  Determinative passage · p.7While we agree that the WCJ properly found that applicant had sustained injury AOE/COE but based on the record before us, the issue of whether there is one or two cumulative trauma injuries requires further study. Moreover, the issue of the date of injury pursuant to section 5412 also requires further study because determination of the date requires that the issue of whether there was one or two periods of cumulative trauma be determined.

  The issue of whether there is one or two cumulative trauma injuries and the date of injury require further study, so final decision is deferred.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ4316583 · 2022-05-09 · Salinas District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814mixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of March 2, 2022, wherein it was found that "Interest was payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula from the date of the Order issued on 2/22/21 until paid on 2/25/21" (Finding No. 5), "A penalty under [Labor Code] section 5814 is payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula on the unpaid interest" (Finding No. 6), and "A reasonable attorney's fee per [Labor Code] section 5814.5 is payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula...." (Finding No. 7.)

  The WCJ found interest payable from 2/22/21 to 2/25/21 and penalties under Labor Code section 5814 and attorney fees under section 5814.5. The WCAB denied applicant's petition for reconsideration but granted defendant's petition, finding defendant had genuine doubt about liability and did not unreasonably refuse payment, thus no penalties or attorney fees under these sections were warranted.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14513995 · 2024-12-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Eric Gofnung Chiropractic Corporation (Gofnung) has petitioned for reconsideration of the Joint Order Dismissing Lien without prejudice (Order Dismissing) dated September 4, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered the lien dismissed after lien claimant failed to appear at the lien conference of June 19, 2024, and failed to object to the Notice of Intention (NIT) to dismiss.

  The Appeals Board found that the lien claimant's failure to appear was due to excusable neglect and illness of the representative, and that the dismissal order was defective due to lack of proper notice to the representative, warranting reconsideration and rescission of the dismissal order.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13374891 · 2022-05-31 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14295098 · 2021-09-27 · Riverside 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 for removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12824866 · 2021-09-09 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12981093 · 2021-06-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  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.

• CHONG LEGAL GROUP
• Chong Legal Group

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.