California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Ali Ashkan Azarakhsh

Law Offices of Ali Ashkan Azarakhsh is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), QME/AME process (1) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys.

Decisions: 8
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 1

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Van Nuys 8

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
3 for the applicant

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.

ADJ13021836 · 2026-06-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred
Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration by defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period. In Case No. ADJ20509813, the WCJ found that applicant sustained
The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to the excretory and reproductive systems during various employment periods, but the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on settlement approval.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11319973 · 2025-06-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10On March 18, 2025, the undersigned WCJ issued Partial Findings and a Notice of Further Proceedings. The undersigned WCJ found the injury compensable and reserved on all other issues including but not limited to retroactive temporary disability indemnity and nature and extent. It is from the finding of compensability that Defendant seeks relief. DISCUSSION: EDWIN HARONIAN, M.D. IS THE PRIMARY TREATING PHYSICIAN
The WCJ and Appeals Board found Dr. Haronian to be the primary treating physician and his reports admissible, rejecting defendant's objections that he was not the PTP and that his reports should be stricken.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ13282654 · 2023-12-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 10, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a medical assistant on July 18, 2019, sustained industrial injury to the lumbar spine and right wrist. The WCJ found good cause to replace Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Moshe Wilker, M.D.
The WCJ found that Dr. Wilker's reports lacked substantial medical evidence due to deficient medical history analysis and incomplete clinical examination, and that the QME's testimony showed bias and unwillingness to reconsider his opinions, justifying replacement.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19417386 · 2025-03-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a Petition for Removal of the Findings and Orders issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 9, 2024, in which the WCJ found that due to an irreparable ambiguity regarding panel strikes of the parties, a new panel is appropriate to replace existing panel number 7709310. The WCJ ordered the medical director of the division of workers' compensation (DWC) to issue a replacement panel, and further ordered that the next set of strikes by the parties as to that replacement panel occur via email to avoid a duplicate strike.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order replacing the panel, and reconsideration is an adequate remedy if adverse final decision issues.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11319973 · 2023-02-15 · Van Nuys 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, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) 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.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11532265 · 2022-09-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on July 18, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10062061 · 2022-04-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant's attorney, on his own behalf, has filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the January 26, 2022 Findings of Fact and Order Releasing Funds Withheld issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the WCJ's report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition will be dismissed for applicant's attorney failure to comply with WCAB rule 10842.
Applicant's attorney failed to serve written notice on the applicant about adverse interest and right to independent counsel, warranting dismissal under WCAB rule 10842.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12264390 · 2021-04-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") issued an Order for Dismissal 12/23/20. Applicant has filed a timely and verified request for Reconsideration on the following grounds pursuant to Labor Code § 5903:
The Board found the petition for reconsideration timely and equitable to grant, rescinding the dismissal and returning the matter for further hearing.
Official decision · page 3 →

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 ALI ASHKAN AZARAKHSH
LAW OFFICES OF ALI AZARAKHSH
Law Offices of Ali Ashkan Azarakhsh
OFFICES OF ALI AZARAKHSH

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the defense

3 for the applicant

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.

ADJ13021836 · 2026-06-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration by defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period. In Case No. ADJ20509813, the WCJ found that applicant sustained

The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to the excretory and reproductive systems during various employment periods, but the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on settlement approval.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11319973 · 2025-06-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10On March 18, 2025, the undersigned WCJ issued Partial Findings and a Notice of Further Proceedings. The undersigned WCJ found the injury compensable and reserved on all other issues including but not limited to retroactive temporary disability indemnity and nature and extent. It is from the finding of compensability that Defendant seeks relief. DISCUSSION: EDWIN HARONIAN, M.D. IS THE PRIMARY TREATING PHYSICIAN

The WCJ and Appeals Board found Dr. Haronian to be the primary treating physician and his reports admissible, rejecting defendant's objections that he was not the PTP and that his reports should be stricken.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ13282654 · 2023-12-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 10, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a medical assistant on July 18, 2019, sustained industrial injury to the lumbar spine and right wrist. The WCJ found good cause to replace Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Moshe Wilker, M.D.

The WCJ found that Dr. Wilker's reports lacked substantial medical evidence due to deficient medical history analysis and incomplete clinical examination, and that the QME's testimony showed bias and unwillingness to reconsider his opinions, justifying replacement.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19417386 · 2025-03-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a Petition for Removal of the Findings and Orders issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 9, 2024, in which the WCJ found that due to an irreparable ambiguity regarding panel strikes of the parties, a new panel is appropriate to replace existing panel number 7709310. The WCJ ordered the medical director of the division of workers' compensation (DWC) to issue a replacement panel, and further ordered that the next set of strikes by the parties as to that replacement panel occur via email to avoid a duplicate strike.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order replacing the panel, and reconsideration is an adequate remedy if adverse final decision issues.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11319973 · 2023-02-15 · Van Nuys 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, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) 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.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11532265 · 2022-09-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on July 18, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10062061 · 2022-04-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant's attorney, on his own behalf, has filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the January 26, 2022 Findings of Fact and Order Releasing Funds Withheld issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the WCJ's report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition will be dismissed for applicant's attorney failure to comply with WCAB rule 10842.

Applicant's attorney failed to serve written notice on the applicant about adverse interest and right to independent counsel, warranting dismissal under WCAB rule 10842.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12264390 · 2021-04-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") issued an Order for Dismissal 12/23/20. Applicant has filed a timely and verified request for Reconsideration on the following grounds pursuant to Labor Code § 5903:

The Board found the petition for reconsideration timely and equitable to grant, rescinding the dismissal and returning the matter for further hearing.

Official decision · page 3 →