California WCABLaw firm

Cohen & Associates

Cohen & Associates is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Cumulative trauma (1) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Redding.

Decisions: 10
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 3

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 8
Redding 1
Santa Rosa 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.

9 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ9898386 · 2024-03-15 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.6The salient issues to be determined herein are whether the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board had jurisdiction to determine whether the Brain Injury Program requested by the primary treating physician, Dr. Timothy Lo, in the July 7, 2023 (Exh. 1) Appeal/Request for Authorization (RFA) is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of the herein injury, and if so, whether applicant is in need of the Brain Injury Program.
The WCJ originally found no jurisdiction because the July 7, 2023 RFA was not based on a material change in fact. Upon reconsideration, the Board found the new information provided by Dr. Lo may document a change in material facts, warranting further proceedings.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ7454093 · 2022-12-30 · Redding District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6The carrier for Kin during this period of injury, September of 2006 through November of 2006, State Compensation Insurance Fund, has accepted liability for injury to the neck, low back, wrists, hands and upper extremities. State Fund and the applicant have already resolved any dispute over temporary disability through stipulations and order dated 10/3/2012. Procedurally, the case has gone through a complicated history of trial and appeal, culminating in the trial of 8/10/21, which proceeded on the sole issue of whether there are one, two or more dates of injury.
The 9-month break in employment with no medical treatment or disability between two periods of injurious exposure establishes two separate cumulative trauma injuries rather than one continuous injury.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ794315 · 2026-04-24 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3In this case, no final order has issued and therefore there are no grounds to seek reconsideration. As such we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
No final order had issued, so no grounds for reconsideration; the petition was also successive, raising previously raised issues.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ8606673 · 2026-02-17 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of the "Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Disqualification" (Order) issued on November 7, 2025, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant further seeks reconsideration, in essence, of the entirety of the proceedings in this matter, which we have interpreted as seeking reconsideration of the "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration" (Order) issued on November 12, 2024, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, wherein we affirmed the WCJ's denial of applicant's petition to set aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release that issued in this matter. Applicant also filed a Petition for Reconsideration from the Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, dated April 8, 2024, which could also be construed as seeking reconsideration of the July 5, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O)..
The petitions for reconsideration were dismissed because they were successive and/or untimely, which is jurisdictionally barred under the Labor Code and relevant case law.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9830518 · 2026-01-28 · Santa Rosa 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
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8791088 · 2025-11-14 · Oakland 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
The Appeals Board found that 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 decision adverse to petitioner.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8606673 · 2025-11-07 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ is prejudiced against the applicant.
The petition failed to establish specific facts constituting grounds for disqualification and was untimely filed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19042851 · 2025-03-18 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Here, the petition does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the request for disqualification is denied.
The petition for disqualification was denied because it failed to meet the requirements of WCAB Rule 10960 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, lacked a required affidavit, and was untimely.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ12642822 · 2025-01-06 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3II. The record reflects that on April 23, 2024, the WCJ issued an order compelling applicant to attend a medical evaluation. Applicant filed the instant Petition for Reconsideration in response. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration.
The petition was untimely, not from a final order, and became moot after the parties resolved the underlying dispute.
Official decision · page 3 →

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.

COHEN & ASSOCIATES
COHEN ASSOCIATES
COHEN AND ASSOCIATES
Cohen & Associates
Cohen Associates

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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

How the appealed decisions came out

9 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ9898386 · 2024-03-15 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

Determinative passage · p.6The salient issues to be determined herein are whether the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board had jurisdiction to determine whether the Brain Injury Program requested by the primary treating physician, Dr. Timothy Lo, in the July 7, 2023 (Exh. 1) Appeal/Request for Authorization (RFA) is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of the herein injury, and if so, whether applicant is in need of the Brain Injury Program.

The WCJ originally found no jurisdiction because the July 7, 2023 RFA was not based on a material change in fact. Upon reconsideration, the Board found the new information provided by Dr. Lo may document a change in material facts, warranting further proceedings.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ7454093 · 2022-12-30 · Redding District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6The carrier for Kin during this period of injury, September of 2006 through November of 2006, State Compensation Insurance Fund, has accepted liability for injury to the neck, low back, wrists, hands and upper extremities. State Fund and the applicant have already resolved any dispute over temporary disability through stipulations and order dated 10/3/2012. Procedurally, the case has gone through a complicated history of trial and appeal, culminating in the trial of 8/10/21, which proceeded on the sole issue of whether there are one, two or more dates of injury.

The 9-month break in employment with no medical treatment or disability between two periods of injurious exposure establishes two separate cumulative trauma injuries rather than one continuous injury.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ794315 · 2026-04-24 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3In this case, no final order has issued and therefore there are no grounds to seek reconsideration. As such we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration.

No final order had issued, so no grounds for reconsideration; the petition was also successive, raising previously raised issues.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ8606673 · 2026-02-17 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of the "Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Disqualification" (Order) issued on November 7, 2025, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant further seeks reconsideration, in essence, of the entirety of the proceedings in this matter, which we have interpreted as seeking reconsideration of the "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration" (Order) issued on November 12, 2024, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, wherein we affirmed the WCJ's denial of applicant's petition to set aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release that issued in this matter. Applicant also filed a Petition for Reconsideration from the Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, dated April 8, 2024, which could also be construed as seeking reconsideration of the July 5, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O)..

The petitions for reconsideration were dismissed because they were successive and/or untimely, which is jurisdictionally barred under the Labor Code and relevant case law.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9830518 · 2026-01-28 · Santa Rosa 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

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8791088 · 2025-11-14 · Oakland 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

The Appeals Board found that 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 decision adverse to petitioner.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8606673 · 2025-11-07 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ is prejudiced against the applicant.

The petition failed to establish specific facts constituting grounds for disqualification and was untimely filed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19042851 · 2025-03-18 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Here, the petition does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the request for disqualification is denied.

The petition for disqualification was denied because it failed to meet the requirements of WCAB Rule 10960 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, lacked a required affidavit, and was untimely.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ12642822 · 2025-01-06 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3II. The record reflects that on April 23, 2024, the WCJ issued an order compelling applicant to attend a medical evaluation. Applicant filed the instant Petition for Reconsideration in response. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration.

The petition was untimely, not from a final order, and became moot after the parties resolved the underlying dispute.

Official decision · page 3 →