California WCABLaw firm

Goldberg Segalla

Goldberg Segalla is named in 31 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (18), AOE/COE (1) and Earnings / average weekly earnings (1). They were heard most often at Santa Ana, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Pro Athlete Law Group (7).

Decisions: 31
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 7
District offices: 6

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 27 of 29 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.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

24 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

17 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

Santa Ana 16
Anaheim 6
Van Nuys 4
San Diego 3
Los Angeles 1
Santa 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.

14 for the defense
11 for the applicant
9 returned for more record

Counted over 31 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.

ADJ19040269 · 2026-04-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Here, it appears to be uncontested that applicant refused or abandoned an offer of modified work. The relevant inquiry in this matter is whether applicant's refusal or abandonment of modified work was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Here, the WCJ did not analyze this issue.
The WCJ did not analyze whether the applicant reasonably refused or abandoned suitable modified work, which is necessary to determine entitlement to temporary disability indemnity. The WCAB found the record insufficient and remanded for further development including QME reporting on disability and work restrictions.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ13556390 · 2025-08-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.10IV. Accordingly, we grant defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether defendants are exempt from California jurisdiction under Labor Code § 3600.5(b) and related exemptions, deferring final decision pending further review.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ18852673 · 2025-07-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The issue submitted for decision was: Does California have subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim of cumulative traumatic injury?
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether meeting the elements in Labor Code section 3600.5(d)(1)(A) and (B) alone is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction in California, deferring final decision pending further review.
Official decision · page 2 →
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 →
ADJ6579284 · 2024-11-05 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.2ultimately may be entitled to an award of 75% permanent disability, we conclude that the WCJ
The Board concluded that the WCJ must revisit the issue of potential liability and jurisdiction over all teams who employed applicant during the cumulative trauma period, including the Detroit Lions, St. Louis Rams, and Denver Broncos, as the prior findings of insufficient contacts and dismissal of the Denver Broncos were premature and require further development of the record and consideration of due process and substantial justice interests.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ14405690 · 2024-10-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5II FACTS Applicant alleged pre-trial that he sustained injury arising out of and during the course of employment while employed as a professional baseball player by the Arizona Diamondbacks, Atlanta Braves, Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Angels, Newark Bears, and Rockland Boulders.1 Employment with Gigantes de Carlona, Leones de Ponce and Congrejeros de Santruce was disputed, as was employment at various locations in California.2 The parties proceeded to trial over three (3) separate days on the issues of subject matter jurisdiction, exemption pursuant to Labor Code § 3600.5, whether the Arizona Diamondbacks, Los Angeles Dodgers and Los Angeles Angels received due process and whether there is employment with Gigantes de Carlona, Leones de Ponce and Congrejeros de Santruce. The undersigned issued Finding of Fact an Order(s) on July 8, 2024.3 Defendant filed timely Petition for Reconsideration appearing to challenge Findings of Fact 1-2: 1. There is subject matter jurisdiction over Applicant's cumulative trauma claim and those baseball teams and/or clubs within the cumulative trauma period. 2. Defendants have not proved exemption pursuant to Labor Code § 3600.5.4 The undersigned recommends against the granting of reconsideration for the reasons below.
Applicant entered into a contract of hire in California with the Los Angeles Angels during the cumulative trauma period, establishing California jurisdiction over the claim despite Defendant's exemption arguments under Labor Code 3600.5.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ8124831 · 2024-08-06 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendants Great Divide Insurance Company through Berkley Entertainment, on behalf of the Indianapolis Colts (Indianapolis Colts), and Ace American Insurance Company on behalf of the Jacksonville Jaguars (Jacksonville Jaguars) each seek reconsideration of the May 16, 2024 Opinion on Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR), wherein a panel of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from April 15, 2005 to December 1, 2010 by the Indianapolis Colts and the Jacksonville Jaguars claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head, brain, jaw, neck, teeth, back, psyche, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hips, bilateral legs, bilateral arms, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, bilateral wrists, bilateral elbows, bilateral hands, fingers, toes, and sleep disturbance. We found, in relevant part, that the WCAB has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury because applicant was hired in California.
The WCAB found that the applicant was hired in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction, and denied the petitions challenging this finding.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8124831 · 2024-05-16 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answers, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the November 18, 2019 F&O and substitute new findings that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury and that all other issues are deferred. We will then return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ.
The WCAB found that the applicant formed a valid oral contract of hire in California by accepting employment offers while physically present in California, thus conferring subject matter jurisdiction under California law.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12766196 · 2024-03-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In addition to the WCJ's well-reasoned Report, we observe the following. Defendant St. Louis Rams contend the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3600.5(c) because applicant had less than 20 percent of his duty days with the Rams. (Rams' Petition, dated January 19, 2023, at p. 6:11.) However, the WCJ found subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury pursuant to section 3600.5(a) when the Rams entered an oral contract with applicant in California. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) The WCJ's Report observes:
The WCJ found and the panel adopted that the applicant entered into oral contracts of hire with the Rams and Seahawks in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(a).
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16588373 · 2024-03-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.8The question is whether there is specific personal jurisdiction, which depends on the relationship between the Royals activity in the state and applicant's claimed injury. However, there is as yet no "decision" relative to personal jurisdiction over the Royals, only an observation that the evidence available so far shows possible sufficient contacts with California, but that more evidence is needed, specifically testimony from the person most desired by the Royals as having the necessary information to support its defense.
The WCJ found possible personal jurisdiction over Kansas City Royals but required further evidence, specifically applicant's testimony, to determine jurisdiction. The WCAB affirmed this as an interlocutory order subject to removal standard and denied removal.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ10857121 · 2024-03-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.3IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Remand of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the issuance of an Award in applicant's workers' compensation case against the New York Yankees is DEFERRED, and that this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings, including but not limited to mandatory arbitration of insurance coverage, and for final determination of all outstanding substantive issues at the trial level, with jurisdiction reserved there.
The Appeals Board deferred issuance of an Award until the insurance coverage issues are finally adjudicated and remanded the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ13282654 · 2023-12-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 10, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a medical assistant on July 18, 2019, sustained industrial injury to the lumbar spine and right wrist. The WCJ found good cause to replace Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Moshe Wilker, M.D.
The WCJ found that Dr. Wilker's reports lacked substantial medical evidence due to deficient medical history analysis and incomplete clinical examination, and that the QME's testimony showed bias and unwillingness to reconsider his opinions, justifying replacement.
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 SEGALLA
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
Goldberg Segalla
GOLDBERG SEGALLA IRVINE LAW
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LAW FIRM
Goldberg Segalla, LLP
GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP

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 Segalla

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

What they litigate

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

How the appealed decisions came out

14 for the defense

11 for the applicant

9 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ19040269 · 2026-04-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Here, it appears to be uncontested that applicant refused or abandoned an offer of modified work. The relevant inquiry in this matter is whether applicant's refusal or abandonment of modified work was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Here, the WCJ did not analyze this issue.

The WCJ did not analyze whether the applicant reasonably refused or abandoned suitable modified work, which is necessary to determine entitlement to temporary disability indemnity. The WCAB found the record insufficient and remanded for further development including QME reporting on disability and work restrictions.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ13556390 · 2025-08-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.10IV. Accordingly, we grant defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether defendants are exempt from California jurisdiction under Labor Code § 3600.5(b) and related exemptions, deferring final decision pending further review.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ18852673 · 2025-07-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2The issue submitted for decision was: Does California have subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim of cumulative traumatic injury?

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study whether meeting the elements in Labor Code section 3600.5(d)(1)(A) and (B) alone is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction in California, deferring final decision pending further review.

Official decision · page 2 →

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 →

ADJ6579284 · 2024-11-05 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.2ultimately may be entitled to an award of 75% permanent disability, we conclude that the WCJ

The Board concluded that the WCJ must revisit the issue of potential liability and jurisdiction over all teams who employed applicant during the cumulative trauma period, including the Detroit Lions, St. Louis Rams, and Denver Broncos, as the prior findings of insufficient contacts and dismissal of the Denver Broncos were premature and require further development of the record and consideration of due process and substantial justice interests.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ14405690 · 2024-10-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5II FACTS Applicant alleged pre-trial that he sustained injury arising out of and during the course of employment while employed as a professional baseball player by the Arizona Diamondbacks, Atlanta Braves, Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Angels, Newark Bears, and Rockland Boulders.1 Employment with Gigantes de Carlona, Leones de Ponce and Congrejeros de Santruce was disputed, as was employment at various locations in California.2 The parties proceeded to trial over three (3) separate days on the issues of subject matter jurisdiction, exemption pursuant to Labor Code § 3600.5, whether the Arizona Diamondbacks, Los Angeles Dodgers and Los Angeles Angels received due process and whether there is employment with Gigantes de Carlona, Leones de Ponce and Congrejeros de Santruce. The undersigned issued Finding of Fact an Order(s) on July 8, 2024.3 Defendant filed timely Petition for Reconsideration appearing to challenge Findings of Fact 1-2: 1. There is subject matter jurisdiction over Applicant's cumulative trauma claim and those baseball teams and/or clubs within the cumulative trauma period. 2. Defendants have not proved exemption pursuant to Labor Code § 3600.5.4 The undersigned recommends against the granting of reconsideration for the reasons below.

Applicant entered into a contract of hire in California with the Los Angeles Angels during the cumulative trauma period, establishing California jurisdiction over the claim despite Defendant's exemption arguments under Labor Code 3600.5.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ8124831 · 2024-08-06 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendants Great Divide Insurance Company through Berkley Entertainment, on behalf of the Indianapolis Colts (Indianapolis Colts), and Ace American Insurance Company on behalf of the Jacksonville Jaguars (Jacksonville Jaguars) each seek reconsideration of the May 16, 2024 Opinion on Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR), wherein a panel of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from April 15, 2005 to December 1, 2010 by the Indianapolis Colts and the Jacksonville Jaguars claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head, brain, jaw, neck, teeth, back, psyche, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hips, bilateral legs, bilateral arms, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, bilateral wrists, bilateral elbows, bilateral hands, fingers, toes, and sleep disturbance. We found, in relevant part, that the WCAB has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury because applicant was hired in California.

The WCAB found that the applicant was hired in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction, and denied the petitions challenging this finding.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8124831 · 2024-05-16 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answers, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the November 18, 2019 F&O and substitute new findings that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury and that all other issues are deferred. We will then return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ.

The WCAB found that the applicant formed a valid oral contract of hire in California by accepting employment offers while physically present in California, thus conferring subject matter jurisdiction under California law.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12766196 · 2024-03-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In addition to the WCJ's well-reasoned Report, we observe the following. Defendant St. Louis Rams contend the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3600.5(c) because applicant had less than 20 percent of his duty days with the Rams. (Rams' Petition, dated January 19, 2023, at p. 6:11.) However, the WCJ found subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury pursuant to section 3600.5(a) when the Rams entered an oral contract with applicant in California. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) The WCJ's Report observes:

The WCJ found and the panel adopted that the applicant entered into oral contracts of hire with the Rams and Seahawks in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(a).

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16588373 · 2024-03-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.8The question is whether there is specific personal jurisdiction, which depends on the relationship between the Royals activity in the state and applicant's claimed injury. However, there is as yet no "decision" relative to personal jurisdiction over the Royals, only an observation that the evidence available so far shows possible sufficient contacts with California, but that more evidence is needed, specifically testimony from the person most desired by the Royals as having the necessary information to support its defense.

The WCJ found possible personal jurisdiction over Kansas City Royals but required further evidence, specifically applicant's testimony, to determine jurisdiction. The WCAB affirmed this as an interlocutory order subject to removal standard and denied removal.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ10857121 · 2024-03-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.3IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Remand of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the issuance of an Award in applicant's workers' compensation case against the New York Yankees is DEFERRED, and that this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings, including but not limited to mandatory arbitration of insurance coverage, and for final determination of all outstanding substantive issues at the trial level, with jurisdiction reserved there.

The Appeals Board deferred issuance of an Award until the insurance coverage issues are finally adjudicated and remanded the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ13282654 · 2023-12-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 10, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a medical assistant on July 18, 2019, sustained industrial injury to the lumbar spine and right wrist. The WCJ found good cause to replace Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Moshe Wilker, M.D.

The WCJ found that Dr. Wilker's reports lacked substantial medical evidence due to deficient medical history analysis and incomplete clinical examination, and that the QME's testimony showed bias and unwillingness to reconsider his opinions, justifying replacement.

Official decision · page 1 →