Law Offices of George E. Corson IV

What they litigate

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

• Penalties under Labor Code §58143
• Liens1
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 4
• Anaheim 2
• Marina del Rey 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Long Beach 1
• Oakland 1
• Pomona 1
• San Jose 1
• 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.

• 7 for the defense
• 5 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 13 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.

• ADJ16889988 · 2026-04-21 · Oakland District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10In its Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration, defendant SCIF asserts that its initial rejection of the interpreter's invoice was based on a good faith misunderstanding of the network billing rules where the adjuster mistakenly applied the medical provider network rule under section 4616 to an interpreter cost under section 5811. We agree with cost petitioner that even if the initial error by the adjuster was in good faith, the subsequent delay was simply unreasonable, and sanctions and attorney fees should be issued against defendant for its conduct and failure to promptly investigate, pay or dispute cost petitioner's invoice.

  Defendant SCIF delayed payment of a valid invoice for 15 months without reasonable excuse, constituting bad faith and tactics solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, warranting sanctions and attorney fees.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ16188766 · 2026-03-02 · Long Beach District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8In the present matter, cost petitioner is entitled to payment for the translation services it provided to applicant for the reading and signing of the C&R under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1). The issue is the amount that cost petitioner is entitled to be paid for its translation services provided.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ16728100 · 2025-10-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Cost petitioner contends, in pertinent part, that the discovery issues remain relevant and that defendant engaged in bad faith actions by unreasonably delaying payment.

  The Cost Petitioner failed to prove bad faith by the defendants, which is required to impose sanctions and attorney fees under Labor Code section 5813 and CCR section 10545(h). The defendants paid the requested amount and a self-imposed penalty, and no evidence of unreasonable delay or bad faith was presented.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8646118 · 2024-07-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5notice and an opportunity to be heard violates the parties' rights to due process. (Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584], citing Rucker, supra, at pp. 157-158.) Due process requires "a `hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.'" (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265, quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313.) Although due process is "a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors," it generally requires the right to present relevant evidence. (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817.) The WCJ imposed sanctions without appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard and in violation of defendant's right of due process. (Lab. Code, § 5813(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10832(a)(3).)

  The WCJ imposed sanctions without appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard, violating due process, and the record was insufficient to support sanctions.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9298865 · 2021-10-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6We next address defendant's contention that applicant failed to mitigate his damages because he did not seek unemployment benefits he could have obtained from the EDD. In this regard, defendant cites no authority, and we are aware of none, for the proposition that applicant's duty to mitigate damages includes a duty to seek unemployment benefits for which defendant may subsequently claim a liability credit. To the contrary, the authorities of which we are aware suggest otherwise.

  Defendant offered no legal authority to claim credit for unemployment benefits; applicant entitled to lost wages without deduction for benefits not received.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13374764 · 2026-04-22 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 18, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the Board dismissed it.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15096065 · 2026-03-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We 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, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909 and found no substantial evidence to reject the WCJ's credibility determination, thus denying the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12635075 · 2025-09-29 · San Jose 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

  The Appeals Board found that defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14297412 · 2025-09-29 · Pomona District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Pursuant to Labor Code section 4603.2(b)(1)(A), a provider of services provided pursuant to Section 4600, including but not limited to interpreters, shall submit its request for payment with an itemization of services provided and the charge for each service, a copy of all reports showing the services performed, the prescription or referral from the primary treating physician if the services were performed by a person other than the primary treating physician, and any evidence of authorization for the services that may have been received. The request for payment with an itemization of services provided and the charge for each service shall be submitted to the employer within 12 months of the date of service or within 12 months of the date of discharge for inpatient facility services. (Lab. Code, § 4603.2(b)(1)(B).)

  The Appeals Board found that the interpreting service was not provided in the context of medical treatment or medical-legal examination, so the 12-month billing requirement under Labor Code section 4603.2(b) did not apply, and thus the petitioner's bill was not barred as untimely.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ18844740 · 2024-11-22 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.345 ["[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. Here, the WCJ's decision solely resolves an intermediate evidentiary / discovery issue. 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 the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration. As we made clear in our En Banc decision in Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg, (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 462, 475-476 (En Banc), and further emphasized in our Significant Panel Decision in Reed v. County of San Bernardino (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases ___;

  The WCJ's order was not a final order, so reconsideration was not proper; the WCJ lacked authority to rescind the order after jurisdiction transferred to the Appeals Board; the Board rescinded both orders to clarify the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11905907 · 2024-10-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.

  The WCJ's discovery order is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration is dismissed; removal is denied as petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 4 →

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 GEORGE CORSON
• LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE CORSON
• LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E. CORSON, IV
• Law Offices of George E. Corson IV
• LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E. CORSON IV
• Law Office of George E. Corson IV
• Law Offices of George E. Corson
• Law Office of George Corson

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.