Law Office of Jesse Melendrez

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 3
• Anaheim 1
• Pomona 1
• Sacramento 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 defense
• 2 for the applicant

Counted over 6 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.

• ADJ16305170 · 2025-06-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11In conjunction with applicant's credible testimony, the WCJ relied on the substantial opinions of Dr. Sirakoff to make findings. "According to the primary treating physician and the applicant's credible testimony, the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury while performing the above job duties. There is substantial evidence to support a finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the neck and back due to a cumulative trauma injury while working at Telecare Corporation as an LVN." (Report, page 5.)

  Applicant's credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from Dr. Sirakoff established cumulative trauma injury AOE/COE to neck and back; PQME Dr. Bernicker's opinion was not substantial evidence due to reliance on incorrect legal theory and inadequate medical history.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ17141277 · 2024-01-31 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Based on our review of the record, it appears that the parties engaged in proper discovery procedures regarding both injury claims until defendant received the report from QME Dr. Esfahane stating that the June 13, 2022 dog bite did not cause applicant's June 20, 2022 stroke. (Def. Exh. F, p. 15.) Defendant then canceled the scheduled neurological examination by QME Dr. Maasumi. Without addressing the issue of whether defendant's conduct was appropriate, it must be noted that Dr. Esfahane specifically stated he was not provided any medical records and/or test reports to review.(Def. Exh. F, p. 12.) Thus, his report is not substantial evidence. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Also, there is no evidence in the record indicating that a neurological examination/report would not enable the WCJ to determine whether applicant's employment was a cause of applicant's stroke.

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the neurological QME evaluation being conducted, and that the QME report from Dr. Esfahane was not substantial evidence because he lacked medical records to review. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the neurology QME evaluation.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14485263 · 2023-10-25 · 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13595177 · 2022-08-03 · Santa Ana 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 show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11077329 · 2021-04-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant dismissed her attorney and filed a Petition for Reconsideration, in pro per, on February 19, 2021. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition will be dismissed as skeletal.

  The petition was dismissed because it was skeletal, failed to state grounds for reconsideration, and lacked specific references to the record or law as required by Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB Rules.

  Official decision · page 1 →

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.