California WCABLaw firm

Ivancich & Costis, LLP

Ivancich & Costis, LLP is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Death benefits (1), Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at Oakland. The firm it meets most often is Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (1).

Decisions: 7
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 1

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

Oakland 7

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.

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

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ17497715 · 2025-02-10 · Oakland District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based on the Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we grant reconsideration to amend the Findings of Fact to show that applicant met the SIBTF eligibility requirements and to award permanent total
The Appeals Board found that the applicant met the 35% SIBTF eligibility threshold based on permanent disability calculations and granted reconsideration to amend the Findings of Fact to award permanent total disability less credits and attorney fees.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14393426 · 2022-10-10 · Oakland District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7This matter arises out of the death of an employee at the hands of a coworker. The act was intentional: The assailant, Edward Go, fired multiple gunshots at the decedent, the applicant, killing him. The issue submitted for decision is whether that death arose out of the decedent's employment. The exhibits, numbering two, consist of the transcripts of two depositions of employees of Pete's Home, a residential care facility. Trial testimony was elicited from one of those employees, a supervisor at Pete's Home, and the decedent's widow. None of that testimony was terribly helpful, but the salient facts are not disputed.
The death was found to have arisen out of and in the course of employment because the decedent was performing services for the employer when assaulted by a coworker, and the employment was a proximate cause of the incident despite the personal animus involved.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ12491308 · 2026-01-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.
The matter was pending on reconsideration but the parties reached a proposed settlement, so the WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the settlement.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8791088 · 2025-11-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9113297 · 2022-07-08 · Oakland District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 28, 2022 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant has not met his burden of proof for eligibility for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF).
The WCJ's finding that applicant's pre-existing injuries were not labor disabling was challenged; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further development to determine if the preexisting conditions are independently capable of supporting a permanent partial disability award, thus labor disabling for SIBTF eligibility.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ2633400 · 2022-01-28 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate
The WCJ's November 3, 2021 Findings were not a final order determining substantive rights or a threshold issue, so reconsideration was dismissed; removal was denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
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.

IVANCICH & COSTIS, LLP
IVANCICH & COSTIS

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 →

Ivancich & Costis, LLP

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

2 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ17497715 · 2025-02-10 · Oakland District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based on the Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we grant reconsideration to amend the Findings of Fact to show that applicant met the SIBTF eligibility requirements and to award permanent total

The Appeals Board found that the applicant met the 35% SIBTF eligibility threshold based on permanent disability calculations and granted reconsideration to amend the Findings of Fact to award permanent total disability less credits and attorney fees.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14393426 · 2022-10-10 · Oakland District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7This matter arises out of the death of an employee at the hands of a coworker. The act was intentional: The assailant, Edward Go, fired multiple gunshots at the decedent, the applicant, killing him. The issue submitted for decision is whether that death arose out of the decedent's employment. The exhibits, numbering two, consist of the transcripts of two depositions of employees of Pete's Home, a residential care facility. Trial testimony was elicited from one of those employees, a supervisor at Pete's Home, and the decedent's widow. None of that testimony was terribly helpful, but the salient facts are not disputed.

The death was found to have arisen out of and in the course of employment because the decedent was performing services for the employer when assaulted by a coworker, and the employment was a proximate cause of the incident despite the personal animus involved.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ12491308 · 2026-01-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

The matter was pending on reconsideration but the parties reached a proposed settlement, so the WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the settlement.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8791088 · 2025-11-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner

The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9113297 · 2022-07-08 · Oakland District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 28, 2022 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant has not met his burden of proof for eligibility for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF).

The WCJ's finding that applicant's pre-existing injuries were not labor disabling was challenged; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further development to determine if the preexisting conditions are independently capable of supporting a permanent partial disability award, thus labor disabling for SIBTF eligibility.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ2633400 · 2022-01-28 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate

The WCJ's November 3, 2021 Findings were not a final order determining substantive rights or a threshold issue, so reconsideration was dismissed; removal was denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →