California WCABLaw firm

Khachikyan Law Group

Khachikyan Law Group is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to Statute of limitations (2), AOE/COE (1) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Santa Ana. The firm it meets most often is Albert and Mackenzie (1).

Decisions: 8
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 2

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

4 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

Van Nuys 7
Santa Ana 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 defense
2 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ16130330 · 2025-04-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3II. Defendant contends that the evidence establishes that applicant's section 5412 date of injury is April 21, 2016, or, alternatively, a date before June 19, 2019. Specifically, defendant argues that (1) the medical record shows that applicant had orthopedic complaints to her neck, back, and shoulders in 2016 that she believed were work- related; and (2) applicant was effectively disabled from work as a result of these orthopedic injuries as shown by an April 21, 2016 chiropractic finding that she had a limited range of motion of the spine, and a February 9, 2017 MRI finding evidencing that she had sustained disability. (Petition, pp. 5:12-7:2.) Under section 5412, "[t]he date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment." (Lab. Code, § 5412.) Whether an employee knew or should have known his disability was industrially caused is a question of fact. (City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467, 471 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 53] (Johnson); Nielsen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Defendant failed to prove applicant knew or should have known of disability caused by employment before May 24, 2022, and no medical evidence showed disability before that date; applicant's suspicion alone insufficient to establish earlier date.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ16130330 · 2025-01-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Hence, the record establishes that the date applicant first knew that she had sustained cumulative injury to her spine, shoulders, and feet and that the injury had resulted in disability is May 24, 2022. Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that applicant's section 5412 date of injury is May 24, 2022.
The Board found that the applicant's date of injury under section 5412 is May 24, 2022, based on medical evidence and testimony, and that the claim filed on May 4, 2022, is timely under section 5405.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ12566822 · 2024-06-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a March 26, 2024 Joint Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and a need for future medical to the teeth/dental based upon reporting from panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs), Drs. Hamlet Davari and David Abri.
The WCJ's decision was based on the credible testimony of the applicant and substantial medical evidence from panel QMEs Drs. Hamlet Davari and David Abri, supporting injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the teeth/dental and need for future medical care. Defendant's challenge to the substantiality of the medical evidence was rejected.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9011956 · 2024-03-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdeferred
Determinative passage · p.1applicant petitions for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on January 4, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's industrial injury while employed by defendant Los Angeles Unified School District as a teacher's assistant on May 9, 2013, did not cause a need for medical treatment for her teeth.
The WCJ originally found no entitlement to medical treatment for teeth from the industrial injury; the WCAB rescinded that decision and returned the matter for further proceedings without ruling on the merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14728798 · 2024-06-04 · Van Nuys 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 deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because 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 adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12571180 · 2023-08-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on June 29, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, leading to dismissal.
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.

KHACHIKYAN LAW GROUP
KHACHIKYAN LAW GROUP, APC
Khachikyan 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.

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 →

Khachikyan Law Group

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the defense

2 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ16130330 · 2025-04-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3II. Defendant contends that the evidence establishes that applicant's section 5412 date of injury is April 21, 2016, or, alternatively, a date before June 19, 2019. Specifically, defendant argues that (1) the medical record shows that applicant had orthopedic complaints to her neck, back, and shoulders in 2016 that she believed were work- related; and (2) applicant was effectively disabled from work as a result of these orthopedic injuries as shown by an April 21, 2016 chiropractic finding that she had a limited range of motion of the spine, and a February 9, 2017 MRI finding evidencing that she had sustained disability. (Petition, pp. 5:12-7:2.) Under section 5412, "[t]he date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment." (Lab. Code, § 5412.) Whether an employee knew or should have known his disability was industrially caused is a question of fact. (City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467, 471 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 53] (Johnson); Nielsen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Defendant failed to prove applicant knew or should have known of disability caused by employment before May 24, 2022, and no medical evidence showed disability before that date; applicant's suspicion alone insufficient to establish earlier date.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ16130330 · 2025-01-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Hence, the record establishes that the date applicant first knew that she had sustained cumulative injury to her spine, shoulders, and feet and that the injury had resulted in disability is May 24, 2022. Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that applicant's section 5412 date of injury is May 24, 2022.

The Board found that the applicant's date of injury under section 5412 is May 24, 2022, based on medical evidence and testimony, and that the claim filed on May 4, 2022, is timely under section 5405.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ12566822 · 2024-06-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a March 26, 2024 Joint Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and a need for future medical to the teeth/dental based upon reporting from panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs), Drs. Hamlet Davari and David Abri.

The WCJ's decision was based on the credible testimony of the applicant and substantial medical evidence from panel QMEs Drs. Hamlet Davari and David Abri, supporting injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the teeth/dental and need for future medical care. Defendant's challenge to the substantiality of the medical evidence was rejected.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9011956 · 2024-03-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdeferred

Determinative passage · p.1applicant petitions for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on January 4, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's industrial injury while employed by defendant Los Angeles Unified School District as a teacher's assistant on May 9, 2013, did not cause a need for medical treatment for her teeth.

The WCJ originally found no entitlement to medical treatment for teeth from the industrial injury; the WCAB rescinded that decision and returned the matter for further proceedings without ruling on the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14728798 · 2024-06-04 · Van Nuys 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 deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because 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 adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12571180 · 2023-08-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on June 29, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, leading to dismissal.

Official decision · page 1 →