Karlin, Hiura & Lasota, LLP

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• San Francisco 5
• Anaheim 4
• Los Angeles 2
• Oakland 2
• Oxnard 2
• Pomona 2
• San Jose 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Fresno 1
• Lodi 1
• Redding 1
• San Bernardino 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.

• 13 for the defense
• 12 for the applicant
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 26 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.

• ADJ13071035 · 2026-04-24 · San Francisco District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Substantial evidence supports my finding of a delay in medical treatment that gave rise to my assessment of penalties under Labor Code section 5814, attorneys' fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 and sanctions in the form of lien claimant's attorneys' fees. Labor Code section 5814 provides for a penalty for the unreasonable delay of compensation. Medical treatment is considered compensation, and a delay in its provision can give rise to a penalty under Labor Code section 5814. (See, Grubb & Ellis v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 807; Paula Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 820.)

  Defendant repeatedly denied payment for authorized medical care, violating Labor Code section 4610.3 and causing delay in compensation under Labor Code section 5814. The delay was egregious and harmed the applicant's medical care and recovery.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ13594888 · 2026-04-13 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Third Amended Arbitrator's Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on January 30, 2026, by the Ironworkers Workers' Compensation Alternative Dispute Resolution Program arbitrator (WCA).1 The arbitrator found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained an industrial cumulative injury through the period ending on October 1, 2017, to his neck, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral upper extremities, bilateral hands, bilateral wrists, bilateral knees, bilateral feet, bilateral ankles, and psyche. The arbitrator further found that applicant's injury caused applicant to sustain 94% permanent partial disability and that 100% of applicant's disability was industrially caused, without apportionment. The arbitrator found that applicant was amenable to vocational rehabilitation and that he could compete in the open labor market, and thus, applicant failed to rebut the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) and was not permanently totally disabled.

  Applicant's medical evidence and vocational evidence support a finding of permanent total disability, contrary to the arbitrator's original finding of permanent partial disability. The Board found the work restrictions assigned by Dr. Henry to be substantial medical evidence and credited the vocational expert's opinion that applicant cannot compete in the open labor market.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11880536 · 2025-08-01 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION

  The WCAB found the WCJ's Findings and Order lacked sufficient findings on key issues such as the size of the recovery, amount of credit, and whether the credit is immediately allowable, and found the WCJ's reliance on the defense expert's comparative negligence report flawed. The WCAB rescinded the F&O and remanded for further proceedings to clarify these issues and develop the record further.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18451814 · 2025-01-03 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8In this matter, we agree with the WCJ that the presumption of compensability afforded under section 5402 does not apply. In order for an alleged industrial injury to be presumed compensable pursuant to section 5402(b), the applicant must show when defendant received the DWC-1 claim form. Here, there is no evidence applicant ever filed a claim form with the employer, as required by sections 5401(c) and (d). In order to trigger the section 5402(b) presumption of compensability, use of the claim form is mandatory, and the filing of an application is not sufficient to trigger the presumption. As applicant has not demonstrated when the employer received the claim form, the presumption of compensability under section 5402(b) is not applicable. We note, however, that even without the presumption of compensability, applicant is still "free to prove in the ordinary manner his injury's industrial causation." (Wagner, supra, at p. 104.)

  Applicant did not file a claim form as required, so the presumption of compensability under section 5402(b) does not apply, but applicant can still prove injury causation by other evidence.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12674446 · 2024-08-16 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8II. Turning to the merits of the petition, section 3600(a)(9) states, in pertinent part, that compensation does not exist where an injury arises "... out of voluntary participation in any off- duty recreational, social, or athletic activity not constituting part of the employee's work-related duties, except where these activities are a reasonable expectancy of, or are expressly or impliedly required by, the employment." (§ 3600(a)(9).) In determining whether off-duty physical fitness activities constitute an industrial injury, the Appeals Board must determine whether the exercise is a reasonable expectancy of employment, which consists of two elements: (1) whether the employee subjectively believes that exercise is expected by the employer, and (2) whether that subjective belief is objectively reasonable. (Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 252, 260 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 611].) Here, defendant first argues that applicant did not have a subjective belief that exercise is expected by the employer. The evidence clearly shows that defendant mandated physical fitness as a condition of employment. Firefighters were required to log 91 hours of fitness each year. Objectively, exercise was required by the employer. Accordingly, applicant met the burden of proving a subjective reasonable belief that exercise was required.

  Applicant was required by employer to exercise 91 hours per year, establishing a subjective and objectively reasonable belief that exercise was expected as part of employment, supporting industrial injury compensability.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11316047 · 2024-04-02 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the January 16, 2024 Findings of Fact and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an in-home support worker during the cumulative period ending May 20, 2018, sustained industrial injury to her heart, hypertension, bilateral knees, bilateral hands, cervical spine, thoracic spine, and psyche. The WCJ found that applicant sustained permanent partial disability of 81 percent and awarded corresponding indemnity and a life pension.

  The WCAB found that the vocational expert's report did not constitute substantial evidence due to its failure to properly address medical apportionment and the inclusion of a nonindustrial lumbar spine injury. The Board granted reconsideration to allow further development of the record to properly adjudicate permanent disability and apportionment issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13628082 · 2023-12-08 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Texas; as a result, the airport that applicant will fly into is LAX, which is nearest the Marina del Rey board; and that there will likely be no employer witnesses at trial. On August 9, 2023, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Grant Petition to Change Venue. Defendant filed an Objection to the Change of Venue on August 24, 2023, providing its own reasons why the venue should not be changed. Without issuing an opinion on decision or holding a hearing, the WCJ issued the Order Denying Change of Venue on August 30, 2023, based on defendant's objection setting forth good cause. The WCJ failed to address applicant's alleged good cause.

  The WCJ denied the change of venue based on defendant's objection, but failed to address applicant's alleged good cause. The Appeals Board found the record insufficient as the WCJ did not issue an opinion on decision or hold a hearing, and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16590361 · 2023-10-16 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The matter proceeded to an expedited hearing on July 10, 2023 on applicant's contention that he was entitled to treat outside defendant's Medical Provider Network ("MPN") as the MPN did not meet the access standards pursuant to Title 8, California Code of Regulations 9767.5. I issued my Finding and Order on August 2, 2023 where I found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that defendant's MPN did not meet the access standards, however, I found that the defendants had neglected to provide medical treatment in this case. It was on that basis that I found the applicant was entitled to treat outside the MPN at defendant's expense. It is from this Finding and Order that defendant has filed a petition for reconsideration.

  The defendant neglected to provide medical treatment within the MPN, failing to arrange initial appointments despite authorizing physicians, thus the applicant is entitled to treat outside the MPN at defendant's expense.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16041647 · 2023-10-09 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Based on the medical exhibits entered into evidence applicant has met his burden of proof.

  Applicant met burden of proof for industrial cumulative trauma injury to right shoulder during employment period ending 2/26/2020.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ11692676 · 2022-10-24 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Campbell stated that after examining applicant and reviewing the medical record, he believed that from a medical perspective, applicant's left thumb and forearm injury claims should be accepted "as meeting AOE/COE criteria." (App. Exh. 2, p. 15.) Based thereon, we agree with the Arbiter that, "The preponderance of the medical evidence confirms that the Applicant sustained an injury to his thumb on or about 4-15-18." (F&O, p. 3, Opinion on Decision.) However, we also agree with Dr. Campbell's conclusion that since, "... the mechanism of injury is one that could have produced shoulder injury to the labrum and undiagnosed shoulder injury can masquerade as neck pain (referred). I probably should re-evaluate him relative to the shoulder." (App. Exh. 1, p. 3.) It is well established that an award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Campbell supporting injury AOE/COE to left forearm and left thumb, based on his examination, history, and medical record review.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10575813 · 2022-05-13 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's decision includes a finding regarding the threshold issue of jurisdiction in Findings of Fact number 1. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal. Moreover, although petitioner does not explicitly challenge Finding of Fact number 1, we are persuaded that defendant is in fact challenging the WCAB's jurisdiction to consider applicant's Petition for Reopen. In its petition, defendant asserts "because there was no original injury, there are no grounds to file a Petition to Reopen for New and Further injury." (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 5:12-13.) We interpret this assertion as a challenge of the Appeals Board's jurisdiction. However, for the reasons stated in the Report, we agree with the WCJ that the June 4, 2019 Findings and Award found injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of dehydration and, because there was a finding of industrial injury, the WCJ had jurisdiction to consider applicant's Petition to Reopen.

  The WCJ found that the June 4, 2019 Findings and Award found injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of dehydration, establishing jurisdiction to consider the Petition to Reopen.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12516127 · 2022-01-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.15(Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 9785 (f)(8).) Dr. Abitbol seems to substitute his "any chance" of helping standard in place of "reasonable medical probability" in support of his request for Zolgensma. For each and all of the reasons noted, the report of Dr. Abitbol is not substantial medical evidence on the issue of the reasonableness and necessity of Zolgensma. The court finds that applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that Zolgensma is reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of his injury.

  The court found that the report of Dr. Abitbol was not substantial medical evidence on the issue of the reasonableness and necessity of Zolgensma. The applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that Zolgensma is reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of his injury.

  Official decision · page 15 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 17.

• KARLIN, HIURA & LASOTA, LLP
• Karlin, Hiura & Lasota, LLP
• KARLIN, HIURA & LaSOTA, LLP
• Karlin, Hiura & Lasota
• KARLIN, HIURA & LASOTA
• Karlin, Hiura & LaSota
• MORSE, GIESLER, CALLISTER, KARLIN & HIURA
• Law Offices of Karlin, Hiura & Lasota
• Karlin, Hiura & La Sota, LLP
• KARLIN HIURA & LASOTA, LLP
• KARLIN, HIURA & LASOTA LLP
• Karlin Hiura & La Sota

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.