JCR Law Group, INC.

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE4
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Liens1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 4
• Bakersfield 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.

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

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ13384253 · 2026-02-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ states: AOE/COE:... The Court accepts Dr. Yuri Falkinstein's medical reports as substantial medical evidence and accepts his medical finding that applicant sustained an industrially related cumulative trauma injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period May 29, 2019 through May 29, 2020.

  The WCJ accepted medical reports and testimony as substantial evidence that applicant sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury during employment period; defendant failed to disprove injury claim.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ9017829 · 2025-01-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of September 30, 2024, wherein it was found that "the applicant... while employed on June 16, 2013 as a fo[r]k lift operator... by DIAMOND STAFFING SERVICES, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE IN LIQUIDATION, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to the lumbar spine, cervical spine, and bilateral knees." (Finding of Fact No. 1.) Finding of Fact Number 2 then contradicts the first finding, (incorrectly) stating, "Pursuant to the Directive of the Workers['] Compensation Appeals Board, the Applicant was an employee of National Retail Transportation, and not an employee of Diamond Staffing Services." Finding of Fact Number 3 cryptically states, "No further issues will be addressed by the Court per Hartford's request." In this matter, Hartford is the carrier for National Retail Transportation (NRT).

  The WCJ failed to rule on CIGA's Petition for change of administration and instead re-litigated a previously settled issue; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for proper ruling on the outstanding issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12322911 · 2021-11-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Applicant's testimony needs to be found credible, and it is the applicant who must sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Labor Code § 3202.5 provides in pertinent part that all parties, including the applicant, must meet her evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence in order that all parties are considered equal before the law. A Trier of Fact must weigh all the evidence, including testimony and its credibility, to determine whether there is a sufficient record based upon which a finding of injury could be reached. Garza v. WCAB (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312.

  Applicant's testimony was found not credible and insufficient to prove injury AOE/COE; PQME Dr. Amory's medical-legal report found no injury AOE/COE; WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12795755 · 2021-08-24 · Los Angeles 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy if final adverse decision issued.

  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.

• JCR LAW GROUP
• JCR Law Group, Inc.
• JCR Law Group

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.