California WCABLaw firm

Goldberg & Ibarra

Goldberg & Ibarra is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Fresno. The firm it meets most often is Bradford & Barthel (1).

Decisions: 6
Years: 2023–2026
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 6 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

2 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

Fresno 6

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.

2 for the applicant
2 for the defense
2 returned for more record

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.

ADJ16801627 · 2023-09-15 · Fresno District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5II FACTS Applicant sustained an accepted industrial injury to his thoracic spine on August 26, 2022, while using a jackhammer and carrying asphalt. The applicant was seen by his PTP, Guillermo Perez, PA-C, on 9/20/22, 9/28/22, 10/26/22, 11/8/22, 12/9/22 and 1/25/23. He was treated with pain medications, muscle relaxant, physical therapy, chiropractic treatments and trigger point injections. (Exh. A, Concentra Medical report, 1/25/23.) An MRI of the thoracic spine showed T5-T6 and T4-T5 small right lateral disc protrusions. The applicant was referred for neurosurgery evaluation but continued on full duty work status. (Ibid.) The applicant underwent a QME evaluation with Steven Mamigonian, D.C. on January 25, 2023. The doctor noted the applicant has not worked since December 2022 and was not receiving any disability benefits. (Exh. 1, Dr. Mamigonian QME report, 1/25/23, pg. 2.) The doctor reported that the applicant described constant moderate thoracic spine pain radiating to the bilateral scapulas and arms up to the biceps with numbness and tingling, worse on the right.
The QME report of Dr. Mamigonian was found to constitute substantial medical evidence supporting applicant's entitlement to temporary disability benefits, and defendant's due process objections were rejected.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10077068 · 2026-07-14 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on April 30, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter is ready to proceed to trial. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. 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. 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.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and no abuse of discretion by the WCJ in taking the matter off calendar for further discovery, thus denying removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13458767 · 2023-05-25 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1While still represented by counsel, applicant filed two Petitions for Reconsideration and Disqualification on April 5, 2022. On April 8, 2022, applicant filed a third Petition for Reconsideration and Disqualification and a dismissal of her attorney. On May 16, 2022, applicant filed a request to file supplemental pleading. We accept that request pursuant to our authority. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) We have considered the allegations of the Petitions for Reconsideration and Disqualification 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny reconsideration and applicant's request for disqualification of the WCJ.
The petitions did not set forth sufficient verified facts to establish disqualification or reconsideration grounds, and the WCJ's report was adopted and incorporated.
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.

GOLDBERG & IBARRA
LAW OFFICES OF GOLDBERG & IBARRA
Goldberg & Ibarra

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 →

Goldberg & Ibarra

Decisions

Years

2023–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

2 for the applicant

2 for the defense

2 returned for more record

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.

ADJ16801627 · 2023-09-15 · Fresno District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5II FACTS Applicant sustained an accepted industrial injury to his thoracic spine on August 26, 2022, while using a jackhammer and carrying asphalt. The applicant was seen by his PTP, Guillermo Perez, PA-C, on 9/20/22, 9/28/22, 10/26/22, 11/8/22, 12/9/22 and 1/25/23. He was treated with pain medications, muscle relaxant, physical therapy, chiropractic treatments and trigger point injections. (Exh. A, Concentra Medical report, 1/25/23.) An MRI of the thoracic spine showed T5-T6 and T4-T5 small right lateral disc protrusions. The applicant was referred for neurosurgery evaluation but continued on full duty work status. (Ibid.) The applicant underwent a QME evaluation with Steven Mamigonian, D.C. on January 25, 2023. The doctor noted the applicant has not worked since December 2022 and was not receiving any disability benefits. (Exh. 1, Dr. Mamigonian QME report, 1/25/23, pg. 2.) The doctor reported that the applicant described constant moderate thoracic spine pain radiating to the bilateral scapulas and arms up to the biceps with numbness and tingling, worse on the right.

The QME report of Dr. Mamigonian was found to constitute substantial medical evidence supporting applicant's entitlement to temporary disability benefits, and defendant's due process objections were rejected.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10077068 · 2026-07-14 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on April 30, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter is ready to proceed to trial. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. 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. 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.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and no abuse of discretion by the WCJ in taking the matter off calendar for further discovery, thus denying removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13458767 · 2023-05-25 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1While still represented by counsel, applicant filed two Petitions for Reconsideration and Disqualification on April 5, 2022. On April 8, 2022, applicant filed a third Petition for Reconsideration and Disqualification and a dismissal of her attorney. On May 16, 2022, applicant filed a request to file supplemental pleading. We accept that request pursuant to our authority. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) We have considered the allegations of the Petitions for Reconsideration and Disqualification 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny reconsideration and applicant's request for disqualification of the WCJ.

The petitions did not set forth sufficient verified facts to establish disqualification or reconsideration grounds, and the WCJ's report was adopted and incorporated.

Official decision · page 1 →