California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of James Harmon

Law Offices of James Harmon is named in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2024. They were heard most often at Santa Ana, then Oxnard. The firm it meets most often is Malmquist, Fields & Camastra (1).

Decisions: 5
Years: 2023–2024
Issues disputed: 0
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 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.

Who they face

2 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

Santa Ana 4
Oxnard 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.

3 for the defense
2 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ14935109 · 2024-11-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550.) WCAB Rule 10625(d), requires that "where a party receives notification that the service to one or more parties failed, the server shall re-serve the document on all intended recipients and execute a new proof of service, or provide a courtesy copy to the recipient on whom service failed, within a reasonable amount of time." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(d).) WCAB Rule 10832 requires, in pertinent part, that (a) The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including dismissing an application; and (b) that a Notice of Intention may be served by designated service in accordance with rule 10629. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.) Due process requires that a party be provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
The dismissal order was rescinded due to defendant's failure to properly serve notices and petitions, violating due process and WCAB rules, and premature issuance of the dismissal order.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ15923475 · 2024-05-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Here, there is currently no evidence admitted into the record regarding applicant's allegation that she was out of the country and has recently returned, and in order to ensure that applicant is provided with due process, we will return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we recommend the WCJ treat applicant's Petition as a petition to set aside, including the setting of a hearing so that applicant can provide evidence in support of her arguments and create a record upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ.
Applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the Board found no evidence admitted to the record supporting applicant's claim of being out of the country and not receiving notice, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record and treat the petition as a petition to set aside and/or reopen.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ13427485 · 2024-05-14 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Order Dismissing Cases (Order) dated October 6, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), dismissed both of applicant's cases without prejudice.
The petition for reconsideration was untimely, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration on its own motion. The dismissal was found invalid because the applicant's attorney's hearing representative appeared at trial, satisfying appearance requirements, making the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and the dismissal order void.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12389829 · 2024-03-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903, emphasis added.) 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
The petition for reconsideration was premature because no final order had been issued; interlocutory procedural decisions are not final orders subject to reconsideration.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ14769680 · 2023-11-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 8, 2023 Order Dismissing Case (Order) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) dismissed applicant's case without prejudice. Applicant contends that "[t]he applicant was out of the country but has now returned and wants to have the opportunity to pursue his claims."
The WCAB panel found the Petition for Reconsideration premature and procedurally improper, dismissing it and returning the matter to the trial level for treatment as a petition to set aside, ensuring due process and a fair hearing.
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.

LAW OFFICE OF JAMES HARMON
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES HARMON
Law Offices of James Harmon

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

3 for the defense

2 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ14935109 · 2024-11-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550.) WCAB Rule 10625(d), requires that "where a party receives notification that the service to one or more parties failed, the server shall re-serve the document on all intended recipients and execute a new proof of service, or provide a courtesy copy to the recipient on whom service failed, within a reasonable amount of time." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(d).) WCAB Rule 10832 requires, in pertinent part, that (a) The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including dismissing an application; and (b) that a Notice of Intention may be served by designated service in accordance with rule 10629. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.) Due process requires that a party be provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

The dismissal order was rescinded due to defendant's failure to properly serve notices and petitions, violating due process and WCAB rules, and premature issuance of the dismissal order.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ15923475 · 2024-05-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Here, there is currently no evidence admitted into the record regarding applicant's allegation that she was out of the country and has recently returned, and in order to ensure that applicant is provided with due process, we will return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we recommend the WCJ treat applicant's Petition as a petition to set aside, including the setting of a hearing so that applicant can provide evidence in support of her arguments and create a record upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ.

Applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the Board found no evidence admitted to the record supporting applicant's claim of being out of the country and not receiving notice, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record and treat the petition as a petition to set aside and/or reopen.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ13427485 · 2024-05-14 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Order Dismissing Cases (Order) dated October 6, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), dismissed both of applicant's cases without prejudice.

The petition for reconsideration was untimely, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration on its own motion. The dismissal was found invalid because the applicant's attorney's hearing representative appeared at trial, satisfying appearance requirements, making the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and the dismissal order void.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12389829 · 2024-03-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903, emphasis added.) 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

The petition for reconsideration was premature because no final order had been issued; interlocutory procedural decisions are not final orders subject to reconsideration.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ14769680 · 2023-11-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 8, 2023 Order Dismissing Case (Order) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) dismissed applicant's case without prejudice. Applicant contends that "[t]he applicant was out of the country but has now returned and wants to have the opportunity to pursue his claims."

The WCAB panel found the Petition for Reconsideration premature and procedurally improper, dismissing it and returning the matter to the trial level for treatment as a petition to set aside, ensuring due process and a fair hearing.

Official decision · page 1 →