Law Offices of Lydia B. Newcomb

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 7
• Long Beach 5
• Los Angeles 4
• Marina del Rey 2
• Marina del Ray 1
• 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.

• 9 for the defense
• 6 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 20 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.

• ADJ16635028 · 2026-06-26 · Long Beach District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Whether Sanctions Should be Imposed Against Lien Claimant and/or their Representative [t]he regulations mandate that lien claimants appear at all lien conferences, either in person or by attorney or non-attorney representative.1 The failure to appear at a hearing is sanctionable conduct.2 Sanctions are appropriate for failures to appear where a reasonable excuse is not offered or the offending party has demonstrated a pattern of such conduct.3 (Emphasis added.)

  The tribunal found that Paperwork & More had notice of the hearing and failed to offer a reasonable excuse for non-appearance; sanctions were appropriate and imposed jointly and severally on Paperwork & More and Stanley B. Johnson, but not on Premier Psychological Services.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16635028 · 2025-10-13 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7to the record. Lien claimant offered an explanation regarding the failure to appear, however, the WCJ declined to hold a hearing on the reasonableness of the excuse. We reiterate the following from our April 14, 2025, Opinion and Decision:

  The WCJ imposed sanctions without holding a hearing or making a record regarding whether sanctions were warranted, depriving lien claimant of due process. There is no evidence of a pattern of bad-faith conduct, and no record was made regarding the reasonableness of the explanation for nonappearance.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15951487 · 2025-08-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8From the evidence available, it appears PQME Dr. Wiseman did not complete the formal medical evaluation. PQME Dr. Wiseman did not prepare and serve the comprehensive medical- legal evaluation report on the injured worker, his attorney, the claims administrator or the employer, within thirty days of seeing the applicant. Instead, PQME Dr. Wiseman only served the report on the insurance carrier with a proof of service on The Hartford Syracuse for a Kentucky post office box, mailed date August 6, 2024, from Los Angeles. (Joint Exhibit 1, PQME Dr. Wiseman, PDF page 51.) Such service is on its face is defective. As stated by the WCJ in the Report:

  PQME Dr. Wiseman failed to serve his report on all parties within the statutory timeframe, constituting a violation of 8 CCR 36 and Labor Code requirements; this defect was not cured by later service by defense counsel. The integrity of the process and neutrality of the QME require concurrent service on all parties.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ16635028 · 2025-04-14 · Long Beach District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we grant lien claimant's Petition, rescind the Order issued on January 13, 2025, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon return to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ hold a hearing to allow the parties to frame the issues and any stipulations, submit exhibits as evidence, call witnesses, if necessary, lodge any objections, and make their legal arguments.

  The WCJ dismissed the lien without a hearing or evidentiary record, depriving the lien claimant of due process and the opportunity to be heard. The Appeals Board found this violated fundamental rights and public policy favoring decisions on the merits.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11369088 · 2025-03-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 377-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)

  The Appeals Board found the medical record on apportionment was not properly developed and granted reconsideration for further development.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14875195 · 2022-10-03 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1An employee may have more than one employer. The characteristics of such dual employment are: 1) that the employee is sent by one employer (the general employer) to perform labor for another employer (the special employer); 2) rendition of the work yields a benefit to each employer; and 3) each employer has some direction and control over the details of the work. (See Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 168 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 134]; Meloy v. Texas Co. (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 691 [18 Cal.Comp.Cases 313]; Ridgeway v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 841 [20 Cal.Comp.Cases 32]; Doty v. Lacy (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 73 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 316]; Caso v. Nimrod Prods. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 881.) The determination of whether a dual employment relationship exists is a question of fact. (Kowalski, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 176.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report and the Opinion on Decision, we agree

  Applicant made a prima facie case of dual employment with no rebuttal evidence from defendants, and the WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13315589 · 2022-08-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 23, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of COVID-19, resulting in injury to his internal organs and causing his death.1

  The WCAB found no substantial evidence on injury AOE/COE causation in the record and granted reconsideration to develop the record further, rescinding the prior Findings and Order.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10549257 · 2021-05-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Accordingly, there is substantial, uncontroverted evidence in the record establishing that applicant was wholly dependent on decedent on decedent's July 22, 2011 date of injury. It is therefore our decision after reconsideration to rescind the WCJ's decision, and issue new findings of fact that applicant was wholly dependent for support on decedent on the date of injury, and a new award consistent with section 4702, subdivision (a)(3).

  Applicant was found to be wholly dependent on decedent at the time of injury based on uncontroverted evidence and testimony, despite prior receipt of Pell grant money, which was not considered to affect dependency at the time of injury.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• 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 →
• ADJ13836041 · 2025-10-20 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2II. It is well settled that where a party fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition by that party unless the party is newly aggrieved. (Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611 [8 Cal.Comp.Cases 177]; Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155, 159 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as successive because the applicant did not prevail on the prior petition and did not file a timely writ of review, thus is bound by the prior decision.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ14429786 · 2025-06-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16866401 · 2025-03-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Pursuant to the clear language of WCAB Rule 10550(a), a case may not be dismissed until the passage of "one year after an order taking off calendar." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550(a).) Given that the last order taking off calendar issued on August 21, 2024, the earliest applicant's case may be dismissed is August 21, 2025. Here, the WCJ issued the NIT on September 17, 2024. As such, the NIT is premature and void. The December 27, 2024 Order is therefore similarly premature and void as it was issued based upon the improper NIT.3

  The dismissal was premature and void because the Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued before the one-year period after the last order taking off calendar had elapsed, and the applicant timely objected to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

  Official decision · page 5 →

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 LYDIA B. NEWCOMB
• Law Offices of Lydia B. Newcomb
• LAW OFFICES OF LYDIA NEWCOMB
• THE LAW OFFICES OF LYDIA B. NEWCOMB
• Law Offices of Lydia Newcomb
• Law Office of Lydia Newcomb
• LYDIA NEWCOMB. ESQ.

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.