California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Goldschmid, Silver & Spindel

Law Offices of Goldschmid, Silver & Spindel is named in 14 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Apportionment (3), Jurisdiction / venue (3) and Permanent disability rating (2). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Marina del Rey. The firm it meets most often is Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen (2).

Decisions: 14
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 13 of 13 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.

Who they face

5 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Van Nuys 7
Marina del Rey 6
Marina del Ray 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.

6 for the applicant
5 returned for more record
3 for the defense

Counted over 13 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.

ADJ7138762 · 2026-04-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3retains the jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter. We noted that while Labor Code1 section 5804 precluded the rescission, alteration, or amendment, of an award more than five years from the date of injury, section 5803 grants the Appeals Board ongoing jurisdiction to enforce its awards, including ancillary proceedings involving commutations and attorney's fees. (ODAR, at p. 4.) Insofar as the present matter involved the allocation of attorney's fees from within applicant's existing award and would not alter or amend the underlying award itself, we concluded that the dispute fell within the Appeals Board's jurisdiction. With respect to applicant's assertion that he was entitled to the full measure of his award once the amount of attorney's fees specified in the award had been withheld, we agreed, noting that the WCJ approving the original award had relied upon the specified amount of attorney's fees in considering the adequacy of the award. (ODAR, at pp. 7-9.) We also observed that pursuant to section 5100, all commutations including those effectuated for attorney's fees, must avoid inequity and undue expense or hardship to the applicant. Accordingly, we concluded that the lateral commutation of attorney's fees from applicant's award of lifetime benefits was limited to the specified amount of attorney's fees approved by the WCJ or the Appeals Board in the first instance.
The WCAB retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the award and the commutation of attorney's fees is collateral to the amount of the award, not a rescission, alteration, or amendment of the award under section 5804.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ7138762 · 2026-01-08 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11to the attorney's fee commutation described in the 2011 Award. Defendant's legal doubt is evident in its letter to applicant's counsel dated January 11, 2024, wherein it advanced the legal assertion that the commutation extended in perpetuity absent any specific agreement to the contrary. (Ex. B, Letter to Applicant's Counsel, dated January 11, 2024.) Defendant's position in this respect is further reflected in its trial briefing and in its Answer. Moreover, given the WCJ's thoughtful analysis and ultimate conclusions supporting defendant's position, the record clearly sets forth genuine legal doubt as to defendant's liability for the monies withheld pursuant to the original commutation calculations. Accordingly, defendant has met its burden of establishing genuine legal doubt as to its liability in this regard, and we decline to award penalties under section 5814, or attorney's fees under section 5814.5.
Defendant demonstrated genuine legal doubt regarding liability for withheld monies, so penalties and additional attorney fees were denied.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ10436761 · 2025-12-26 · Marina del Rey District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.7II. Applicant asserts in his petition that the WCJ erred in determining that he did not sustain industrial injury to his psyche based upon a finding that his claim is barred by the good faith personnel defense pursuant to Section 3208.3(h). Section 3208.3 governs claims for psychiatric injury. To establish that a psychological injury is compensable, an injured worker must show by
The Appeals Board found the WCJ's analysis incomplete regarding whether the applicant sustained a compensable psyche injury and whether the good faith personnel action defense applied, requiring further medical evidence and analysis.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ7138762 · 2025-03-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the December 17, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a regional manager from November 12, 1991 to November 12, 1992, sustained industrial injury to his psyche and in the form of emotional stress. The WCJ found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction to amend the applicant's prior Award of permanent disability, and that applicant has not proven that additional indemnity payments are due beyond what is specified in the Award.
The WCAB has continuing jurisdiction to enforce awards but limited jurisdiction to amend awards after five years from injury. The issue whether attorney fee commutation reductions can be altered is jurisdictional. The Board granted reconsideration to review this issue further.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10151267 · 2025-02-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 23, 2024 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein and as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her cervical and lumbar spine, left hand, head, ears and psyche and injury in the form of blackouts, while employed as an Associate Director of Transportation on May 18, 2015. The WCJ further found applicant is totally permanently disabled because of her injury on a psychiatric basis.
The Appeals Board found the record was not properly developed with substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's finding of total permanent disability due to brain injury and psychiatric dysfunction, warranting reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9647382 · 2024-08-22 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Award" (F&A) issued on September 29, 2021, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of fibromyalgia which caused 65% permanent partial disability.
The WCJ's permanent disability rating of 65% was found to be unsupported due to lack of sufficient medical evidence to rebut the Combined Values Chart, and the vocational expert's opinion on CVC rebuttal was deemed irrelevant as non-medical. The matter was remanded for further development of the record including medical evidence on CVC rebuttal and clarification of work restrictions for vocational evaluation.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10997880 · 2023-08-28 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.72. The issue of injury in the form of hypertension is deferred with jurisdiction reserved.
The WCJ found the physical injuries did not constitute a catastrophic injury under Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4660.1(c)(2)(B), and deferred the permanent disability rating and hypertension injury issues pending further medical development.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ11080016 · 2023-07-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 9, 2023 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's injuries were not caused by the serious and willful misconduct of her employer.
The evidence did not show that the employer or its representatives had actual knowledge of a safety order violation or that the conditions posed a probable risk of serious injury with reckless disregard. The classroom size and occupancy were within contractual limits, and the cited regulations were construction codes, not safety orders. The employer's conduct did not rise to the level of serious and willful misconduct.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8599329 · 2022-06-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10In conclusion, defendant did not meet its burden of proving apportionment of permanent disability to the lumbar spine is warranted. Therefore, we will affirm the F&A.
Defendant failed to meet burden of proving apportionment to the 2016 non-industrial motor vehicle accident or prior industrial injury due to inadequate medical evidence and lack of proof of overlap with prior disability.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ9422746 · 2021-11-23 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact & Order (Joint F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 11, 2020. By the Joint F&O, the WCJ found in relevant part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of fibromyalgia. She further found that the medical report of Dr. David Yu is admissible as an exhibit and is substantial evidence on the issue of causation for the fibromyalgia. Further development of the record was ordered with a regular physician per Labor Code2 section 5701. (Lab. Code, § 5701.)
The Board found Dr. Yu's reports admissible as treatment reports from a secondary treating physician and substantial evidence temporally linking applicant's fall and work stress to fibromyalgia, rejecting Dr. Bluestone's opinions as not substantial evidence to rebut causation.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11495225 · 2021-05-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Labor Code1 section 4663(a) provides that "[a]pportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation." (Lab. Code, § 4663(a).) Section 4664(a) states that "[t]he employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by the injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment." (Lab. Code, § 4664(a).) The defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1114 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].)
The medical opinion of PQME Michael Luciano, M.D., was found not to be substantial medical evidence supporting apportionment due to lack of sufficient records and reliance on conjecture. The defendant failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ4583618 · 2026-01-20 · Marina del Ray District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Removal 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).)
The WCAB applied the removal standard for interlocutory issues and found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
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.

GOLDSCHMID, SILVER & SPINDEL
Law Offices of Goldschmid, Silver & Spindel
GOLDSCHMID SILVER & SPINDEL
GOLDSCHMID SILVER 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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Law Offices of Goldschmid, Silver & Spindel

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

5 returned for more record

3 for the defense

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ7138762 · 2026-04-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3retains the jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter. We noted that while Labor Code1 section 5804 precluded the rescission, alteration, or amendment, of an award more than five years from the date of injury, section 5803 grants the Appeals Board ongoing jurisdiction to enforce its awards, including ancillary proceedings involving commutations and attorney's fees. (ODAR, at p. 4.) Insofar as the present matter involved the allocation of attorney's fees from within applicant's existing award and would not alter or amend the underlying award itself, we concluded that the dispute fell within the Appeals Board's jurisdiction. With respect to applicant's assertion that he was entitled to the full measure of his award once the amount of attorney's fees specified in the award had been withheld, we agreed, noting that the WCJ approving the original award had relied upon the specified amount of attorney's fees in considering the adequacy of the award. (ODAR, at pp. 7-9.) We also observed that pursuant to section 5100, all commutations including those effectuated for attorney's fees, must avoid inequity and undue expense or hardship to the applicant. Accordingly, we concluded that the lateral commutation of attorney's fees from applicant's award of lifetime benefits was limited to the specified amount of attorney's fees approved by the WCJ or the Appeals Board in the first instance.

The WCAB retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the award and the commutation of attorney's fees is collateral to the amount of the award, not a rescission, alteration, or amendment of the award under section 5804.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ7138762 · 2026-01-08 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.11to the attorney's fee commutation described in the 2011 Award. Defendant's legal doubt is evident in its letter to applicant's counsel dated January 11, 2024, wherein it advanced the legal assertion that the commutation extended in perpetuity absent any specific agreement to the contrary. (Ex. B, Letter to Applicant's Counsel, dated January 11, 2024.) Defendant's position in this respect is further reflected in its trial briefing and in its Answer. Moreover, given the WCJ's thoughtful analysis and ultimate conclusions supporting defendant's position, the record clearly sets forth genuine legal doubt as to defendant's liability for the monies withheld pursuant to the original commutation calculations. Accordingly, defendant has met its burden of establishing genuine legal doubt as to its liability in this regard, and we decline to award penalties under section 5814, or attorney's fees under section 5814.5.

Defendant demonstrated genuine legal doubt regarding liability for withheld monies, so penalties and additional attorney fees were denied.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ10436761 · 2025-12-26 · Marina del Rey District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.7II. Applicant asserts in his petition that the WCJ erred in determining that he did not sustain industrial injury to his psyche based upon a finding that his claim is barred by the good faith personnel defense pursuant to Section 3208.3(h). Section 3208.3 governs claims for psychiatric injury. To establish that a psychological injury is compensable, an injured worker must show by

The Appeals Board found the WCJ's analysis incomplete regarding whether the applicant sustained a compensable psyche injury and whether the good faith personnel action defense applied, requiring further medical evidence and analysis.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ7138762 · 2025-03-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the December 17, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a regional manager from November 12, 1991 to November 12, 1992, sustained industrial injury to his psyche and in the form of emotional stress. The WCJ found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction to amend the applicant's prior Award of permanent disability, and that applicant has not proven that additional indemnity payments are due beyond what is specified in the Award.

The WCAB has continuing jurisdiction to enforce awards but limited jurisdiction to amend awards after five years from injury. The issue whether attorney fee commutation reductions can be altered is jurisdictional. The Board granted reconsideration to review this issue further.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10151267 · 2025-02-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 23, 2024 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein and as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her cervical and lumbar spine, left hand, head, ears and psyche and injury in the form of blackouts, while employed as an Associate Director of Transportation on May 18, 2015. The WCJ further found applicant is totally permanently disabled because of her injury on a psychiatric basis.

The Appeals Board found the record was not properly developed with substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's finding of total permanent disability due to brain injury and psychiatric dysfunction, warranting reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9647382 · 2024-08-22 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Award" (F&A) issued on September 29, 2021, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of fibromyalgia which caused 65% permanent partial disability.

The WCJ's permanent disability rating of 65% was found to be unsupported due to lack of sufficient medical evidence to rebut the Combined Values Chart, and the vocational expert's opinion on CVC rebuttal was deemed irrelevant as non-medical. The matter was remanded for further development of the record including medical evidence on CVC rebuttal and clarification of work restrictions for vocational evaluation.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10997880 · 2023-08-28 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.72. The issue of injury in the form of hypertension is deferred with jurisdiction reserved.

The WCJ found the physical injuries did not constitute a catastrophic injury under Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4660.1(c)(2)(B), and deferred the permanent disability rating and hypertension injury issues pending further medical development.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ11080016 · 2023-07-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 9, 2023 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's injuries were not caused by the serious and willful misconduct of her employer.

The evidence did not show that the employer or its representatives had actual knowledge of a safety order violation or that the conditions posed a probable risk of serious injury with reckless disregard. The classroom size and occupancy were within contractual limits, and the cited regulations were construction codes, not safety orders. The employer's conduct did not rise to the level of serious and willful misconduct.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8599329 · 2022-06-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10In conclusion, defendant did not meet its burden of proving apportionment of permanent disability to the lumbar spine is warranted. Therefore, we will affirm the F&A.

Defendant failed to meet burden of proving apportionment to the 2016 non-industrial motor vehicle accident or prior industrial injury due to inadequate medical evidence and lack of proof of overlap with prior disability.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ9422746 · 2021-11-23 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact & Order (Joint F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 11, 2020. By the Joint F&O, the WCJ found in relevant part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of fibromyalgia. She further found that the medical report of Dr. David Yu is admissible as an exhibit and is substantial evidence on the issue of causation for the fibromyalgia. Further development of the record was ordered with a regular physician per Labor Code2 section 5701. (Lab. Code, § 5701.)

The Board found Dr. Yu's reports admissible as treatment reports from a secondary treating physician and substantial evidence temporally linking applicant's fall and work stress to fibromyalgia, rejecting Dr. Bluestone's opinions as not substantial evidence to rebut causation.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11495225 · 2021-05-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Labor Code1 section 4663(a) provides that "[a]pportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation." (Lab. Code, § 4663(a).) Section 4664(a) states that "[t]he employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by the injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment." (Lab. Code, § 4664(a).) The defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1114 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].)

The medical opinion of PQME Michael Luciano, M.D., was found not to be substantial medical evidence supporting apportionment due to lack of sufficient records and reliance on conjecture. The defendant failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ4583618 · 2026-01-20 · Marina del Ray District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Removal 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).)

The WCAB applied the removal standard for interlocutory issues and found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 3 →