California WCABLaw firm

Equitable Law Firm APLC

Equitable Law Firm APLC is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Santa Ana. The firm it meets most often is Bradford & Barthel (1).

Decisions: 9
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 of 8 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

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

Who they face

4 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Van Nuys 8
Santa Ana 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.

6 for the defense
1 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ10501131 · 2023-10-31 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, and to issue a new decision from which any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.
There was insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether the UR was timely, as threshold documents (RFA and medical report with proof of service) were not admitted into evidence.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ7909061 · 2023-08-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order (F&A) in case number ADJ7745966, issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 22, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, and in the form of GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease); the WCJ also found that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his lungs or in the form of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).
Applicant failed to meet burden of proof to show industrial injury on disputed body parts and conditions despite multiple opportunities to develop the medical record; Appeals Board found no good cause to further delay resolution by additional record development.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15820808 · 2025-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny removal. Removal 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
Removal is an extraordinary remedy and is only granted if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. Defendant did not meet this burden.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13691697 · 2024-04-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on January 24, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the petition for reconsideration, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13397065 · 2024-03-11 · Santa Ana 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 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 →
ADJ4690879 · 2023-08-09 · Van Nuys 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 because the petitioner did not show 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 →
ADJ4367808 · 2023-06-30 · Van Nuys 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 removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8538699 · 2022-12-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6The Petitioner did not raise the issue of a need to develop the record. The Minutes of Hearing dated 11/24/2021 set forth the issues to be addressed at trial. The Petitioner specifically did not request that the trial judge order a development of the record. The issue was never raised. Hence there is no finding of fact, decision or final order from which the Petitioner can seek relief.
The petition for reconsideration seeking development of the record was denied because the issue was not raised at trial, no new evidence was presented, and the existing evidence was substantial.
Official decision · page 6 →

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.

EQUITABLE LAW FIRM APLC
Equitable Law Firm APLC
MICHAEL H. MOGHTADER, ESQ. /EQUITABLE LAW FIRM APLC

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 →

Equitable Law Firm APLC

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the defense

1 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ10501131 · 2023-10-31 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, and to issue a new decision from which any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.

There was insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether the UR was timely, as threshold documents (RFA and medical report with proof of service) were not admitted into evidence.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ7909061 · 2023-08-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order (F&A) in case number ADJ7745966, issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 22, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, and in the form of GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease); the WCJ also found that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his lungs or in the form of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).

Applicant failed to meet burden of proof to show industrial injury on disputed body parts and conditions despite multiple opportunities to develop the medical record; Appeals Board found no good cause to further delay resolution by additional record development.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15820808 · 2025-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny removal. Removal 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

Removal is an extraordinary remedy and is only granted if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. Defendant did not meet this burden.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13691697 · 2024-04-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on January 24, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petitioner withdrew the petition for reconsideration, so the petition was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13397065 · 2024-03-11 · Santa Ana 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 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 →

ADJ4690879 · 2023-08-09 · Van Nuys 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 because the petitioner did not show 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 →

ADJ4367808 · 2023-06-30 · Van Nuys 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 removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8538699 · 2022-12-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6The Petitioner did not raise the issue of a need to develop the record. The Minutes of Hearing dated 11/24/2021 set forth the issues to be addressed at trial. The Petitioner specifically did not request that the trial judge order a development of the record. The issue was never raised. Hence there is no finding of fact, decision or final order from which the Petitioner can seek relief.

The petition for reconsideration seeking development of the record was denied because the issue was not raised at trial, no new evidence was presented, and the existing evidence was substantial.

Official decision · page 6 →