Hallett, Emerick, Wells & Sareen

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Anaheim 4
• Van Nuys 4
• Los Angeles 3
• Pomona 3
• Marina del Rey 2
• Riverside 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Oakland 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Diego 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.

• 11 for the defense
• 10 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 23 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.

• ADJ18164316 · 2026-03-09 · Riverside District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 15, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed as a correctional deputy trainee, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right shoulder and big toes; that her injury caused temporary disability for which she has been adequately compensated; that her injury caused 0% permanent disability, entitling applicant to zero weeks of disability; that her permanent and stationary date is August 20, 2024; and, that she will require further medical treatment.

  The WCJ's finding of 0% permanent disability was challenged due to lack of substantial evidence and procedural due process violations related to discovery closure before Dr. Hardy's deposition. The Appeals Board found that the matter required further development, including admission of Dr. Hardy's deposition transcript, to ensure due process and substantial justice.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9935791 · 2025-12-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we rescind the F&O, substitute a new Findings of Fact that finds that a contested claim existed at the time lien claimant provided its services and that it should be paid for its services, but we defer the amount and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The Board found that a contested claim existed at the time the lien claimant provided services, and that the services were reasonable and necessary, thus entitlement to payment was established. The amount owed was deferred for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ15777619 · 2025-10-13 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5This matter was proceeded to trial on the applicant's designation of Boomerang Medical Group as the applicant has elected PTP, see Joint. Exh. X1, and defendant's contention that the group is not within the defendant's MPN and applicant must treat within the MPN.

  Defendant failed to provide evidence of valid MPN notices or medical treatment within the MPN, resulting in an adverse inference of neglect or refusal to treat, allowing applicant to treat outside the MPN.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15359587 · 2025-03-03 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Next, we disagree with the WCJ's overly technical reliance on stipulated occupation numbers in order to justify making the determination that applicant's job description in the medical reporting was somehow not credible. Dr. Bolling provided a detailed list of applicant's job duties, and Dr. Bolling was aware that applicant was the manager. Even if applicant was a manager, when she performed the more physical duties, she would have been entitled to a higher occupational variant. Thus, we conclude that the medical reporting by the QME Dr. Bolling is substantial medical evidence and sufficient to find AOE/COE.

  The WCAB found that the QME Dr. Bolling's medical opinion was substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE, rejecting the WCJ's prior finding that the QME's opinion was not substantial due to occupational history discrepancies, and granted reconsideration to find injury AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10947203 · 2024-12-27 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The Order was based on the WCJ's determination that applicant "failed to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on November 4, 2021..." but the record does not support this finding. Applicant's attorney was present, representing applicant, at the November 4, 2021 MSC, and at the August 12 and September 23, 2021 status conferences cited in the NIT. Applicant's attorney's appearance at each proceeding met the requirement that an applicant, "...shall appear or have an attorney or non-attorney representative appear at all hearings pertaining to the case in chief." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752 (a), emphasis added).) Moreover, applicant "appeared" at each proceeding, pursuant to the definition of "appearance" as "a party or their representative's presence, pursuant to Labor Code section 5700, at any hearing." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10305 (c), emphasis added.) Thus, the determination that applicant "failed to appear," which the WCJ relied upon in issuing the Order is incorrect. The WCJ's reference to WCAB Rule 10755 is similarly incorrect. That Rule, which addresses only the situation where "a required party, after notice, fails to appear" at an MSC, is inapplicable here, when applicant was represented by counsel at the MSC and thus did not fail to appear. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10755.)

  The dismissal order was invalid because the applicant was represented by counsel at the mandatory settlement conference, which constitutes an appearance under the applicable rules, and the notice of intention to dismiss did not meet due process requirements including proper naming and adequate notice.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13080332 · 2024-02-08 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.5It appears that Dr. Mirzaians is awaiting additional diagnostics and a re-evaluation of applicant before he addresses the issues of permanent disability and apportionment. However, it also must be noted that in his November 1, 2021 supplemental report Dr. Mirzaians discussed various inconsistencies in the record as to whether applicant sustained injury to his right shoulder, left shoulder, or both shoulders. (Joint Exh. 4, pp. 6 § 7.) To be substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be based on pertinent facts, on an adequate examination and on an accurate history. (Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra.) The inconsistencies in the medical record, as discussed by Dr. Mirzaians, render his earlier opinions not substantial evidence as to applicant's shoulder injury. Review of the record also indicates that Dr. Mirzaians did not review any medical records pertaining to, and did not provide an opinion as to, the claimed "fingers" injury.4 Therefore, the record does not contain substantial evidence regarding that issue.

  Inconsistencies in the medical record and lack of substantial evidence regarding shoulder and fingers injuries; issues deferred for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16344618 · 2023-12-04 · Anaheim District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Medland Medical Group seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of September 12, 2023, wherein it was found that, while employed as a machine operator during a cumulative period ending May 27, 2022, applicant sustained industrial injury to the elbow and back, but not to the arm, wrist, or other body parts. As relevant to the instant Petition, it was found that lien claimant was not entitled to reimbursement for its lien. The basis behind the disallowance was the purported fact that applicant had been discharged from care by his primary treating physician, and that any further care from a new treating physician was only available after going through the qualified medical evaluator or agreed medical evaluator process. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785; Tenet/Centinela Hospital Medical Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rushing) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1041 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 477.)

  The WCJ disallowed the lien claim based on the discharge of care by the primary treating physician and the requirement to go through the QME or AME process for further care; the WCAB granted reconsideration to analyze the applicability of the discharge and designation of a new primary treating physician.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11681317 · 2023-07-24 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Having reviewed Mummaneni's reports, we agree with the WCJ that the PQME's reporting is incomplete and not substantial medical evidence regarding causation. Dr. Mummaneni's discussion regarding cause of disability does not explain his reasoning or analysis for reaching his conclusion of "at least [] 1% causation". Dr. Shen's opinions are not based on pertinent facts, nor are they based on an adequate medical history, and none of the reports set forth the reasoning behind his opinions. Thus, his reports are not substantial evidence upon which a finding of cumulative injury, AOE/COE can be based. Lien claimant presented no additional evidence other than their own reports to support that the injury was industrial in nature. Dr. Andrew Shen issued two reports. (L.C. Exh. 2, March 12, 2019 and December 20, 2018 by Dr. Andrew Shen.) Neither report is a comprehensive med-legal evaluation. Likewise, the reports by applicant's secondary treating physicians: Stanley S. Wong, DAOM L.Ac. (Acupuncturist) (Exh. 4) and Henry Kan, DC (Chiropractor) (Exh. 3) do not constitute comprehensive med-legal evaluations. The applicant was not called to testify. Absent stipulations regarding the alleged injury and the injured body parts, a lien claimant must prove that applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE. "

  The lien claimant failed to prove injury AOE/COE by substantial medical evidence, as the PQME's and other medical reports were incomplete and lacked adequate reasoning, and the applicant did not testify.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11092501 · 2022-03-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 30, 2019. The WCJ found that applicant, while employed on October 13, 2017, as a production line worker, sustained an admitted industrial injury to her head and brain. The WCJ also found that defendant's improper service of the Utilization Review (UR) determination renders it invalid, and the determination of medical necessity for the treatment may be made by the Appeals Board. The WCJ found defendant is liable for continuing applicant's outpatient physical rehabilitation, consisting of transitional living center day treatment, transportation, and interpreter services, until they are no longer reasonably required pursuant to Labor Code section 4600.1

  The WCJ and WCAB found that defendant's UR determination was untimely and invalid, giving the WCAB jurisdiction to determine medical necessity. Substantial medical evidence, including Dr. Patterson's reports and team conference notes, supported the need for continuing outpatient rehabilitation until no longer reasonably required.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14026834 · 2021-11-22 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ states: All defense witnesses testified that they did not know the applicant and that he was not ever hired to work for the employer, however, their testimony was contradictory on several issues detailed, below.

  The WCJ found applicant rendered service to defendant based on credible testimony, including a witness still employed by defendant, and found defendant's contradictory witness testimony not credible, thus upholding the presumption of employment and contract of hire.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ6680097 · 2021-08-10 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of April 6, 2020, the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a child support officer by the County of San Bernardino during the period September 11, 2007 through September 11, 2008, sustained industrial injury to her wrists, elbows and psyche, but not to her neck or shoulders, that applicant's claim was settled by Stipulations and Award approved June 13, 2012, stipulating to injury only to the bilateral elbows and wrists resulting in 21% permanent disability, that the WCAB has jurisdiction to award benefits for the psychiatric injury under Labor Code Section 5410 because applicant filed a timely Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability, and that applicant's Petition to Reopen is not barred by the Statute of Limitations under Labor Code Section 5405. The WCJ also found that due to a psychiatric injury sustained as a compensable consequence of applicant's original industrial injury, she has incurred new and further disability further disability to her psyche but not to her wrists, elbows, shoulders, or neck, and that the psyche injury has resulted in the need for further medical treatment and permanent disability of 54%, without apportionment.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found substantial evidence in Dr. Nehorayan's psychiatric reports supporting compensable psychiatric injury as a consequence of the original industrial injury, and rejected defendant's challenges including statute of limitations and lack of substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ953988 · 2021-02-22 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Applicant asserts that her permanent disability rating should not have been based on a strict application of the AMA Guides, contending that she has rebutted the rating as the medical and vocational evidence in the record establishes she is not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and has experienced a total loss of future earning capacity. Applicant contends that the opinion of her vocational expert, Laura Wilson, supports her claim for permanent total disability on the basis that she is not amenable to vocational rehabilitation due solely to the effects of her industrial injury, and without consideration of impermissible factors.

  The WCJ and panel found the vocational expert's opinion was not substantial evidence to rebut the permanent disability rating based on the AMA Guides and permanent disability rating schedule, as the vocational opinion relied on subjective factors not supported by medical evidence and did not properly segregate non-industrial factors.

  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.

• HALLETT, EMERICK, WELLS & SAREEN
• Hallett, Emerick, Wells & Sareen
• HALLETT EMERICK WELLS & SAREEN
• HALLETT, EMERICK, WELLS & SAREEN, APLC
• HALLETT, EMERICK, WELLS & SAREEN, PLC
• Hallett Emerick Wells & Sareen
• HALLETT EMERICK WELLS &SAREEN
• Hallett Emerick Law Firm
• HALLETT EMERICK

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.