California WCABLaw firm
Law Offices of Barsoum Law
Law Offices of Barsoum Law is named in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Jurisdiction / venue (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at Marina del Rey, then Bakersfield. The firm it meets most often is Dimaculangan & Associates (1).
- Decisions
- 5
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 4
Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 5 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.
1 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 5 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.
- ADJ10594852 · 2025-04-14 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1812. For ADJ10594852, applicant sustained injury to the right index finger resulting in permanent disability of 38%, payable in an amount to be adjusted by the parties, with jurisdiction reserved to the WCJ in the event of dispute. 13. For ADJ10882630, applicant sustained injury to the back resulting in permanent disability of 15%, payable in an amount to be adjusted by the parties, with jurisdiction reserved to the WCJ in the event of dispute. 14. Defendant is not entitled to a credit for overpayment of temporary disability benefits in ADJ10882630 to be applicable against permanent disability benefits owed in ADJ10594852. 15. Applicant requires further medical treatment to cure or relieve the effects of these injuries. 16. The issues of the amount of attorney's fees to which applicant is entitled in ADJ10594852 and ADJ10882630 are deferred.
The Appeals Board substituted findings that the right index finger injury resulted in 38% permanent disability, payable with jurisdiction reserved to the WCJ for disputes.
Official decision · page 18 → - ADJ16477989 · 2025-01-17 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.7Here, there are three reasons that the WCJ's November 1, 2024 F&O, including the finding that applicant did not make a showing of good cause to oppose the NIT to submit, and the order that the matter stands submitted, must be rescinded. First, the WCJ's decision must be based on "admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 476), but the F&O entered here are not supported by an adequate evidentiary record. The available evidence appears to demonstrate that defendant did not provide adequate notice of hearing to applicant. Defendant was designated pursuant to WCAB Rule 10629 to serve the August 28, 2024 minutes, but its September 6, 2024 proof of service for those minutes stated, incorrectly, "Trial On 8/28/24," thus giving the false impression that a trial had already occurred on August 28, 2024. (9/6/24 POS; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10629.) Defendant's proof of service contained no indication that the matter had been set for trial, nor any indication that the trial date was set for September 30, 2024. (Ibid.) In addition, defendant failed to timely serve and file a Notice of Hearing for the September 30, 2024 trial date. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10750.) Instead, nearly two weeks after the trial date had
The record did not show that applicant received adequate notice of the September 30, 2024 trial; defendant's proof of service was misleading and did not indicate the correct trial date, and no proper Notice of Hearing was timely served or admitted into evidence. Applicant was not given an opportunity to rebut the presumption of receipt or to be heard, violating due process.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ11673008 · 2021-08-12 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 7, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her neck and claimed to have sustained injury to her head, nervous system, both arms, both legs, and excretory system; and that applicant was not entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits.
Applicant was not entitled to temporary disability benefits after employer discovered she was ineligible to work legally; employer compliance with federal law precludes liability for benefits after that date.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14092812 · 2026-04-21 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.31180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. In this matter, no order has issued, whether final or interlocutory. Applicant has not filed a Petition from a "final" order, decision, or award to reconsider as required by sections 5900(a), 5902 and 5903. Instead, applicant has made allegations regarding how his now, former attorney, failed to represent him in the case, which is not appropriate when seeking reconsideration. Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration.
The petition was dismissed because it was not filed from a final order or decision as required by law, and the Appeals Board timely acted on the petition within 60 days of transmission.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ10791448 · 2023-01-26 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Accordingly, we vacate our Grant for Study and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration issued by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on January 18, 2023 is VACATED.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the parties settled and the applicant withdrew the petition.
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.
- BARSOUM LAW
- Law Offices of Barsoum Law
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.