Law Offices of a. Alexander Solhi & Associates

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• QME/AME process1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 3
• Long Beach 2
• Pomona 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 4 for the applicant
• 2 for the defense
• 1 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.

• ADJ12758878 · 2024-05-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the February 20, 2024 Findings and Award is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the February 20, 2024 Findings and Award is AFFIRMED except that Finding number 1 is AMENDED as follows: 1. the applicant, while employed during the period between October 25, 2018 to October 25, 2019 as a housekeeper, occupational group number 340 at Los Angeles, California, by SKYLINE HEALTHCARE AND WELLNESS CENTER LLC, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was COMP WEST sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right and left shoulder, right and left wrist, and right and left knee.

  The Board amended the injury findings to include additional body parts based on the QME's medical reports, finding industrial injury to multiple body parts beyond those originally found by the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12973629 · 2024-03-11 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Having reviewed the trial record, we agree with the WCJ that there are several inconsistencies in the information provided to the various doctors whose reports were admitted into evidence. Also, the job duties described by the doctors are quite inconsistent with those identified in the Usual and Customary Job Description. (Def. Exh. F.)2 Based thereon, we cannot determine the accuracy of the doctors' reports that were admitted into evidence, and in turn the reports are not substantial evidence.

  The WCAB found inconsistencies in applicant's history, job duties, and medical reports, concluding the record lacked substantial evidence to support the WCJ's denial of injury AOE/COE, warranting further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11065911 · 2022-12-27 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Defendant has engaged in a course of conduct, after being elected, co-opting the QME panel of the elected out party, ignoring the election statute, not complying with the rules and regulations that would allow for another evaluation, and doing so to obtain a medical report which would have been inadmissible at trial, flagrantly violating LC 5813 and 8 CCR 10421(b). Their course of conduct defines actions that are frivolous, without merit, pursued for an improper purpose and demonstrate a willful failure to comply with the applicable statutes and regulations. It is for these reasons that the sanction is appropriate.

  The defendant engaged in a course of conduct violating the election statute and regulations, constituting frivolous and improper actions warranting sanctions.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ18073365 · 2024-01-12 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5(Lab. Code, § 5815.) Taken together, sections 5313 and 5815 require the WCJ to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy" and to issue a corresponding award, order or decision that states the "reasons or grounds upon which the [court's] determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313, 5815; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-622 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Here, the WCJ has not addressed applicant's assertion that the QME panel request that was served on applicant's counsel did not include the supporting documentation required by AD Rule 30(b)(1)(A)-(B), as required by AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C). Nor did the WCJ address the fact that defendant's correspondence striking Richard Rogachefsky, M.D. from the QME panel (strike letter) is dated September 7, 2023, and the proof of service of the letter is dated September 7, 2023 (Exhibit C), but the envelope received by applicant's attorney bears a postage stamp dated September 8, 2023. (Exhibit 1.) The presumption that a letter mailed was received is rebuttable. (Suon v.

  The WCJ did not address the applicant's assertion that the QME panel request lacked required supporting documentation and that the proof of service was questionable, leading to insufficient evidentiary findings. The Appeals Board found the record inadequate and granted reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13814285 · 2022-01-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on November 3, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, as our decision after reconsideration, we vacate our grant of reconsideration and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration..

  Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner while pending, leading to vacating the grant of reconsideration and dismissal of the petition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11065911 · 2021-09-09 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached

  Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's decision solely resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and we will vacate our previous Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration. Defendant's Petition will be dismissed as one seeking reconsideration.

  The WCJ's decision was not a 'final' order as it resolved only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, and defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12801649 · 2021-06-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2With respect to defendant's third Petition, we will deny the Petition. Removal 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 significant 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, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

  The WCAB found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the Petition for Removal.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• LAW OFFICES OF A. ALEXANDER SOLHI & ASSOCIATES
• LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER SOLHI & ASSOCIATES
• LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER SOLHI & ASSOCIATES, APC
• LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER SOLHI

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.