Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton & Goldstein

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 6
• Oxnard 4
• Mon 3
• Bakersfield 2
• Anaheim 1
• Long Beach 1
• San Bernardino 1
• San Francisco 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 applicant
• 8 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 18 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.

• ADJ18593806 · 2025-08-25 · Oxnard District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, the plain language of section 3212.15 compels a finding that applicant has sustained a presumptively compensable injury. There is no dispute that applicant is among the classes of employees for whom the presumption of section 3212.15 is available, or that the PTSD arose or manifested during applicant's employment. (Lab. Code § 3212.15, subd. (b), (c).) The medical record establishes a diagnosis of PTSD. (Dr. Egan's QME Report; Dr. Isaac's PTP report, dated January 2, 2024.) Applicant has thus met the burden of proof necessary for the presumption of industrial causation to attach, and the burden of proof now shifts to the defendant to affirmatively controvert the presumption, or we are "bound to find in accordance with [the presumption]." (Lab. Code § 3212.15(c)(2).)

  Applicant met the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.15, and defendant failed to rebut it with substantial evidence, so the injury to psyche in the form of PTSD is compensable.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13410693 · 2023-11-21 · Oxnard District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings of Fact of June 22, 2021, the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that during the period February 12, 2017 through July 15, 2020, applicant, while employed as a District Attorney Investigator by the County of Ventura, sustained industrial injury to his psyche in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD").

  The WCAB found the presumption of industrial PTSD under Labor Code section 3212.15 applicable and not rebutted, and that the predominant cause requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3 does not apply to the presumption, affirming the WCJ's finding of injury during the period 2/12/2017 to 7/15/2020.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9601706 · 2023-09-08 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant CVS Pharmacy (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on June 14, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the disability issues presented at trial were to be found in accordance with the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME).

  The WCJ's decision was found vague and ambiguous, failing to address all issues presented, including permanent disability and parts of body injured, and lacking a clear basis in law, thus failing to meet statutory requirements for findings and awards.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10573852 · 2023-05-19 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3followed by the combination of the orthopedic disability with that of the hearing loss, tinnitus and hypertension. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explained that while "generally impairments are combined rather than added together...when there is a synergistic effect between extremities, those ratings may be added together rather than combined." (F&A, Opinion on Decision, at p. 8.) The WCJ relied on the reporting of IME Dr. Fishman to support adding the orthopedic disability prior to combining it with non-orthopedic disabilities. (Ibid.)

  The WCJ properly relied on IME Dr. Fishman's opinion that adding the bilateral orthopedic disabilities prior to combining with non-orthopedic disabilities results in a more accurate permanent disability rating, supported by substantial medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ15229971 · 2023-03-17 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Whether an employee's injury arose out of and in the course of employment is generally a question of fact to be determined in light of the particular circumstances of the case. (Wright v. Beverly Fabrics (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 51].)

  The injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the employer strongly encouraged vaccination to reduce absences and maintain workforce availability, and the vaccination substantially benefited the employer. The applicant's injury from vaccine side effects is compensable under established case law even though vaccination was not mandatory.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15505678 · 2022-11-10 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4is not subject to review by the Appeals Board. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to address defendant's contentions regarding this order.

  The Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders such as the arbitrator's order to develop the record, which is not a final order under Labor Code section 3201.5(a)(1).

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ7678058 · 2022-01-25 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3a) That this WCJ erred in relying on the opinions of the internal AME, Richard Hyman, M.D., on the issue of apportionment of applicant's internal disability; and

  The WCJ found that the opinions of the internal AME, Dr. Richard Hyman, and the neurologic Panel QME, Dr. Lawrence Richman, were not substantial evidence to support the apportionment of the internal disability and neurologic disability respectively.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11414976 · 2021-07-30 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In considering the evidence provided by the parties and considering the admitted evidence, with respect to applicant's internal system-diabetes claim, the parties selected Robert Fisher, MD, as the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator in the field of Internal Medicine. In Dr. Fisher's Medical Report dated 03/06/2019, Dr. Fisher opined that when the applicant was restricted to light duty after his industrial injury to his right shoulder, his physical activity was markedly reduced, and it is with reasonable medical probability that his blood sugar level became elevated because of the lack of exercise. Joint Exhibit X, Medical Report of PQME Robert Fisher, MD QME dated 03/06/2019, page 58, par. 2, EAMS DOC ID NO.: 72194444. Defendants presented no evidence to the contrary.

  The panel QME Dr. Robert Fisher's medical reports constituted substantial evidence that the applicant sustained injury to his internal system-diabetes arising out of and in the course of employment, supported by uncontroverted applicant testimony and lack of contrary evidence from defendants.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12206488 · 2021-06-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The Applicant, Michael the applicant, on April 2, 2019, while employed as a police officer, Occupational Group Number 490, claims to have sustained injury while working out at the gym on the premises located at the City of Glendora Police Department, Glendora, CA. Applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, neck, right wrist, right shoulder, headaches, cardiovascular system, hypertension, and vision.

  Applicant was on duty, authorized to be at work, and injured while working out at the on-premises gym; the 2009 waiver was not enforced and did not bar the claim; the injury was not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9).

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11289453 · 2021-04-27 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of February 4, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. In this matter, applicant claims that, while employed as a police officer during a cumulative period ending on August 13, 2012, she sustained industrial injury in the form of cancer, specifically squamous cell carcinoma of the anus.

  The WCJ found that applicant did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the industrial causation of her cancer until the medical expert Dr. Wiseman found it in 2019, which was after the filing of the Application for Adjudication in 2018, thus the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11413863 · 2021-02-08 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the November 18, 2020 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed by the State of California as a vocational instructor during the period January 14, 2014 through June 1, 2018, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his respiratory system and in the form of valley fever.

  The PQME Dr. Hendel provided a reasoned medical opinion based on reasonable medical probability that the applicant contracted valley fever at work, supported by the applicant's outdoor work exposure and antibody evidence, which the WCJ and panel found substantial.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ347040 · 2009-08-17 · MONJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.116 Our June 11, 2009 en banc decision rescinded the January 13, 2009 Findings and Award of

  The WCAB lost jurisdiction over non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims after the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 effective January 1, 2009, and the applicant's right to retroactive VRMA benefits was not vested before that date.

  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.

• Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton & Goldstein
• GORDON, EDELSTEIN, KREPACK, GRANT, FELTON & GOLDSTEIN
• GORDON EDELSTEIN KREPACK GRANT FELTON & GOLDSTEIN
• GORDON, EDELSTEIN, KREPACK, GRANT, FELTON & GODLSTEIN
• Gordon Edelstein Krepack Grant Felton & Goldstein
• GORDON, EDELSTEIN, KREPACK ET AL.
• Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack et al.
• GORDON EDELSTEIN

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.