California WCABLaw firm

Hirschl Mullen

Hirschl Mullen is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (4), Liens (1) and QME/AME process (1). They were heard most often at Riverside, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Bentley & More (1).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 8

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 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

7 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

Riverside 3
Anaheim 1
Los Angeles 1
Oakland 1
Pomona 1
Redding 1
San Bernardino 1
Van Nuys 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.

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

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ20106865 · 2026-05-18 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Not only does the letter not explicitly refer to objection, it does not contain any objection whatsoever. Applicant is entitled to retain the control of the QME process and did nothing to lose that control. Thus, defendant waived its right to an objection.
Defendant's strike letter did not contain any objection to the QME panel specialty, so defendant waived its right to object; applicant was entitled to choose the specialty and chiropractic was appropriate.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ18434613 · 2025-07-25 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Petitioner contends that the WCALJ erred in finding that the Applicant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment. The undersigned maintains that the facts, medical evidence and law supports a finding of AOE/COE on the following grounds:
The WCJ found the applicant's testimony credible and the QME deferred industrial causation to the trier of fact, supporting the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ17886767 · 2025-04-15 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Orders of December 9, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed on March 16, 2023 as an activity assistant, applicant sustained industrial injury to her right wrist and right hand causing the need for further medical treatment to those body parts. Applicant also claims injury to the head, neck, right arm, right shoulder, right hip and lumbar spine as a result of the March 16, 2023 incident, but the issue of injury to those body parts was deferred.
The WCJ and WCAB found that applicant was injured in the course of employment while performing usual and customary duties benefiting the employer, even though she was not scheduled to work that day, supported by credible testimony and legal precedent.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13610807 · 2025-02-03 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3(1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313], emphasis added.) As discussed by the WCJ, applicant met her burden of proving injury AOE/COE, based in part on the opinions of panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) in cardiology Stuart Fischer, M.D. (Exhibits 1A - 1G) and panel QME in neurology Pedram Navab, M.D. (Exhibits 2A - 2H). Although the WCJ and both QMEs refer to "cardiac arrest" we note that this is not a body part. Additionally, we note that it is axiomatic that an injury must be to a body part and, as such, any finding of injury AOE/COE must identify at least one body part. (See Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 5401(a); Clark, supra, at 297-298.) Therefore we will amend Findings of Fact No. 1 and No. 2 to find that applicant sustained injury to her heart.
The WCJ and QMEs Fischer and Navab provided substantial medical evidence that applicant's sudden cardiac arrest was industrially related, meeting the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and reasonable probability standard.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ9961038 · 2024-12-02 · Riverside District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award and Order issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 19, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on February 5, 2025 by defendant, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment (AOE/COE) to the left shoulder, left knee, left ankle, feet, psyche, back, hands, arms, "CRPS", right wrist, head, neck left eye, jaw, face, chest, legs, "weight gain and loss", gastro- intestinal, intestinal, and thyroid. In Findings of Fact two (2) and three (3), the WCJ stated that the parties declined to have the court address issues of compensability, parts of the body, and apportionment, and limited the court's issues to whether applicant is 100% permanently totally disabled, and attorney's fees. The WCJ thereafter made a finding that "assuming the case is compensable because of said injury, applicant is permanently totally disabled," and appears to have conditionally awarded applicant permanent disability of 100%, as well as attorney's fees.
The WCJ awarded 100% permanent total disability assuming compensability, but the Appeals Board found no stipulation or finding of industrial causation for the claimed injuries, and that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the award. The Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further development and review.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11637452 · 2023-02-17 · Riverside District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, Riverside Community Hospital, seeks reconsideration of the December 2, 2022, Findings and Order. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that lien claimant did not show that it was entitled to reimbursement in excess of the amount paid by the defendant previously. Accordingly, the WCJ ordered that the lien be disallowed, and that lien claimant take nothing.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11048583 · 2022-06-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant seek reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that, in ADJ1104582, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his back and feet on September 10, 2017, and, in ADJ11048583, applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his jaw, mouth teeth and shoulders on September 10, 2017.1 The WCJ also found that the reporting of Dr. Schames was not substantial medical evidence. Although cases ADJ1104582 and ADJ1104583 were consolidated together with ADJ13630518, the Findings and Order does not address whether applicant sustained an industrial injury in ADJ13630518, a claim for a cumulative trauma injury through September 15, 2017 to applicant's back, shoulder and foot. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his claims in ADJ1104582 and ADJ11048583.
The WCJ did not address all issues submitted, requiring reconsideration and further proceedings to determine if applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17410564 · 2025-09-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Accordingly, due process requires that we grant defendant's Petition for Removal, rescind the Order filed on June 25, 2024, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Removal granted because the WCJ issued the order without a hearing or notice of intent, violating due process and lacking evidentiary support, thus prejudicing defendant's rights.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ17198125 · 2025-04-28 · Anaheim 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 treat the petition as one for reconsideration and deny reconsideration.
The petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board, and the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17780543 · 2025-03-14 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On January 24, 2024, a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an order setting the matter for trial. On February 2, 2024, defendant filed a petition for automatic reassignment. On February 12, 2024, defendant filed a petition for removal in response to the order setting the matter for trial. On February 15, 2024, the WCJ granted the petition for reassignment and issued an order taking the matter off calendar.
The WCJ rescinded the order within the 15-day period allowed under WCAB Rule 10955(d), making the petition for removal moot and unnecessary to transmit to the Appeals Board.
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.

THE LAW OFFICES OF HIRSCHL MULLEN
LAW OFFICES OF HIRSCHL MULLEN
Hirschl Mullen
Law Offices of Hirschl Mullen
HIRSCHL MULLEN

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 →

Hirschl Mullen

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

4 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ20106865 · 2026-05-18 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Not only does the letter not explicitly refer to objection, it does not contain any objection whatsoever. Applicant is entitled to retain the control of the QME process and did nothing to lose that control. Thus, defendant waived its right to an objection.

Defendant's strike letter did not contain any objection to the QME panel specialty, so defendant waived its right to object; applicant was entitled to choose the specialty and chiropractic was appropriate.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ18434613 · 2025-07-25 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Petitioner contends that the WCALJ erred in finding that the Applicant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment. The undersigned maintains that the facts, medical evidence and law supports a finding of AOE/COE on the following grounds:

The WCJ found the applicant's testimony credible and the QME deferred industrial causation to the trier of fact, supporting the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ17886767 · 2025-04-15 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Orders of December 9, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed on March 16, 2023 as an activity assistant, applicant sustained industrial injury to her right wrist and right hand causing the need for further medical treatment to those body parts. Applicant also claims injury to the head, neck, right arm, right shoulder, right hip and lumbar spine as a result of the March 16, 2023 incident, but the issue of injury to those body parts was deferred.

The WCJ and WCAB found that applicant was injured in the course of employment while performing usual and customary duties benefiting the employer, even though she was not scheduled to work that day, supported by credible testimony and legal precedent.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13610807 · 2025-02-03 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3(1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313], emphasis added.) As discussed by the WCJ, applicant met her burden of proving injury AOE/COE, based in part on the opinions of panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) in cardiology Stuart Fischer, M.D. (Exhibits 1A - 1G) and panel QME in neurology Pedram Navab, M.D. (Exhibits 2A - 2H). Although the WCJ and both QMEs refer to "cardiac arrest" we note that this is not a body part. Additionally, we note that it is axiomatic that an injury must be to a body part and, as such, any finding of injury AOE/COE must identify at least one body part. (See Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 5401(a); Clark, supra, at 297-298.) Therefore we will amend Findings of Fact No. 1 and No. 2 to find that applicant sustained injury to her heart.

The WCJ and QMEs Fischer and Navab provided substantial medical evidence that applicant's sudden cardiac arrest was industrially related, meeting the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and reasonable probability standard.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ9961038 · 2024-12-02 · Riverside District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award and Order issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 19, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on February 5, 2025 by defendant, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment (AOE/COE) to the left shoulder, left knee, left ankle, feet, psyche, back, hands, arms, "CRPS", right wrist, head, neck left eye, jaw, face, chest, legs, "weight gain and loss", gastro- intestinal, intestinal, and thyroid. In Findings of Fact two (2) and three (3), the WCJ stated that the parties declined to have the court address issues of compensability, parts of the body, and apportionment, and limited the court's issues to whether applicant is 100% permanently totally disabled, and attorney's fees. The WCJ thereafter made a finding that "assuming the case is compensable because of said injury, applicant is permanently totally disabled," and appears to have conditionally awarded applicant permanent disability of 100%, as well as attorney's fees.

The WCJ awarded 100% permanent total disability assuming compensability, but the Appeals Board found no stipulation or finding of industrial causation for the claimed injuries, and that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the award. The Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further development and review.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11637452 · 2023-02-17 · Riverside District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, Riverside Community Hospital, seeks reconsideration of the December 2, 2022, Findings and Order. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that lien claimant did not show that it was entitled to reimbursement in excess of the amount paid by the defendant previously. Accordingly, the WCJ ordered that the lien be disallowed, and that lien claimant take nothing.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11048583 · 2022-06-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant seek reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that, in ADJ1104582, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his back and feet on September 10, 2017, and, in ADJ11048583, applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his jaw, mouth teeth and shoulders on September 10, 2017.1 The WCJ also found that the reporting of Dr. Schames was not substantial medical evidence. Although cases ADJ1104582 and ADJ1104583 were consolidated together with ADJ13630518, the Findings and Order does not address whether applicant sustained an industrial injury in ADJ13630518, a claim for a cumulative trauma injury through September 15, 2017 to applicant's back, shoulder and foot. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his claims in ADJ1104582 and ADJ11048583.

The WCJ did not address all issues submitted, requiring reconsideration and further proceedings to determine if applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17410564 · 2025-09-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Accordingly, due process requires that we grant defendant's Petition for Removal, rescind the Order filed on June 25, 2024, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Removal granted because the WCJ issued the order without a hearing or notice of intent, violating due process and lacking evidentiary support, thus prejudicing defendant's rights.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ17198125 · 2025-04-28 · Anaheim 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 treat the petition as one for reconsideration and deny reconsideration.

The petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board, and the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17780543 · 2025-03-14 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On January 24, 2024, a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an order setting the matter for trial. On February 2, 2024, defendant filed a petition for automatic reassignment. On February 12, 2024, defendant filed a petition for removal in response to the order setting the matter for trial. On February 15, 2024, the WCJ granted the petition for reassignment and issued an order taking the matter off calendar.

The WCJ rescinded the order within the 15-day period allowed under WCAB Rule 10955(d), making the petition for removal moot and unnecessary to transmit to the Appeals Board.

Official decision · page 1 →