California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Melody Z. Cox

Law Offices of Melody Z. Cox is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2022. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Substantial evidence / credibility (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Pomona, then San Jose. The firm it meets most often is Law Offices of Jesse Marino, APC (1).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2021–2022
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 6

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 6 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

3 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

Pomona 3
San Jose 2
Santa Ana 2
Anaheim 1
Riverside 1
Sacramento 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.

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

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ9310145 · 2022-08-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, applicant was employed as a laborer on October 4, 2011, and defendant stipulated to that applicant was employed on that date and that his occupational variant was 360. Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10835; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The stipulation that applicant's occupational variant is 360 has not been disputed. As applicant's specific injury occurred on October 4, 2011, and his cumulative trauma injury began on October 4, 2011, applicant is entitled to the higher group number. We note that the assignment of the higher occupational group does not change the recommended permanent disability rating.
The parties stipulated that applicant's occupational variant for the specific injury on October 4, 2011 was 360, and the Board found applicant entitled to the higher group number for the cumulative trauma period as well.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12234008 · 2022-06-17 · Sacramento District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 4, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the trial record does not contain substantial medical evidence that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period from July 16, 2019, through October 18, 2020, and that there was good cause for applicant's employment to be terminated.1
The medical evidence was inconsistent and lacked explanation for varying opinions on applicant's disability status, preventing determination of temporary total disability periods; the issue of good cause for termination depends on establishing temporary disability periods after termination date.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10849936 · 2022-05-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Cases 579], the Court of Appeal concluded that the date of injury under Labor Code section 5500.5 requires compensable temporary disability or permanent disability, that medical treatment alone is not disability but may be evidence of compensable permanent disability, and that these are factual determinations which require expert medical opinion. In this case, Hartford contends that the date of injury is May 19, 2017 because that is when applicant began treating with Dr. Rostami, and there was permanent disability from the outset because applicant's condition remained the same during the doctor's treatment for the year that followed. It was after that time, on May 15, 2018, that Dr. Rostami declared applicant permanent and stationary (P&S) and formally determined that he had sustained permanent disability. According to Hartford, May 15, 2018 is not the date of cumulative trauma because Dr.
The Appeals Board found that the date of injury is May 15, 2018, based on Dr. Rostami's May 15, 2018 report declaring the applicant permanent and stationary with 21% whole person impairment, and rejected Hartford's contention that the date should be earlier based on lack of substantial medical evidence before that date.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11574921 · 2022-04-08 · San Jose District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant questions the substantiality of the CPRS diagnosis by treating physicians Robert Aptekar, M.D., and Peter Abaci, M.D., in part, because there is "no evidence that any type of physical examination took place." (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 4:13-15.) However, the summary of applicant's August 27, 2019 office visit with Dr. Aptekar, contained within the September 23, 2019 report of panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) Robert Stone, D.C., specifically states, "The applicant was here for a follow up..." (Dr. Stone's 9/23/19 report, at p. 2, Joint Exhibit 4, emphasis added.) Dr. Aptekar's August 13, 2020 report, as summarized in Dr. Stone's March 8, 2021 report clearly describes a physical examination of applicant noting, "The patient was seen for routine follow up.... Left wrist was tender to palpation. Motion was limited. Rotation was painful. Grip strength was reduced...." (Dr. Stone's 3/8/21 report, at p. 18, Joint Exhibit 1, emphasis added.) The same evidence of a physical examination is true of Dr. Abaci's September 21, 2020 visit note, which was also summarized in Dr. Stone's March 8, 2021 report. The summary states:
The WCJ and WCAB found that the PQME Dr. Stone's opinion, which relied on treating physicians Dr. Aptekar and Dr. Abaci, was substantial medical evidence based on reasonable medical probability and adequate examination, rejecting the contrary opinion of Dr. Navani who was not a PQME and did not review all records.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12210104 · 2022-02-14 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order of December 1, 2021, in which the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that on February 7, 2018, the injured employee, the applicant, sustained industrial injury to his left thumb while employed as a machinist by Sepragen Corporation, insured by The Hartford (defendant). The WCJ also found that the injury resulted in the need for medical treatment and surgery provided by the lien claimant herein, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.). In addition, the WCJ found that the injured employee's case-in-chief was never the subject of a Stipulated Award or Compromise and Release, that the case was administratively closed by defendant, that the current proceeding was initiated by the V.A.
The WCJ and WCAB found that federal law expressly preempts California Labor Code Section 5307.1 and the OMFS with respect to the VA's billings, and that applicable federal billing schedules apply instead.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12756033 · 2022-01-31 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Based on the evidence and applicant's credible testimony, applicant meets his burden of proof according to Labor Code sections 3202 and 3202.5. The court finds applicant has a compensable injury to his lumbar spine, left leg and left hip.
The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight, and the evidence including applicant's credible testimony and documentation supported compensability despite defendant's surveillance video argument.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ13764471 · 2022-10-11 · Pomona 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12535594 · 2021-06-10 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the Findings and Order was issued and served by mail on applicant to her address as listed in the Official Address Record on March 25, 2021. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Monday, April 19, 2021 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on April 22, 2021 is untimely and must be dismissed.
The petition was filed after the 25-day statutory period for reconsideration had expired, making it untimely and depriving the Board of jurisdiction.
Official decision · page 2 →

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 MELODY Z. COX
Law Offices of Melody Z. Cox
LAW OFFICES OF MELODY COX
Law Offices of Melody Cox
LAW OFFICE OF MELODY COX

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 Melody Z. Cox

Decisions

Years

2021–2022

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

3 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ9310145 · 2022-08-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, applicant was employed as a laborer on October 4, 2011, and defendant stipulated to that applicant was employed on that date and that his occupational variant was 360. Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10835; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The stipulation that applicant's occupational variant is 360 has not been disputed. As applicant's specific injury occurred on October 4, 2011, and his cumulative trauma injury began on October 4, 2011, applicant is entitled to the higher group number. We note that the assignment of the higher occupational group does not change the recommended permanent disability rating.

The parties stipulated that applicant's occupational variant for the specific injury on October 4, 2011 was 360, and the Board found applicant entitled to the higher group number for the cumulative trauma period as well.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12234008 · 2022-06-17 · Sacramento District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 4, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the trial record does not contain substantial medical evidence that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period from July 16, 2019, through October 18, 2020, and that there was good cause for applicant's employment to be terminated.1

The medical evidence was inconsistent and lacked explanation for varying opinions on applicant's disability status, preventing determination of temporary total disability periods; the issue of good cause for termination depends on establishing temporary disability periods after termination date.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10849936 · 2022-05-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Cases 579], the Court of Appeal concluded that the date of injury under Labor Code section 5500.5 requires compensable temporary disability or permanent disability, that medical treatment alone is not disability but may be evidence of compensable permanent disability, and that these are factual determinations which require expert medical opinion. In this case, Hartford contends that the date of injury is May 19, 2017 because that is when applicant began treating with Dr. Rostami, and there was permanent disability from the outset because applicant's condition remained the same during the doctor's treatment for the year that followed. It was after that time, on May 15, 2018, that Dr. Rostami declared applicant permanent and stationary (P&S) and formally determined that he had sustained permanent disability. According to Hartford, May 15, 2018 is not the date of cumulative trauma because Dr.

The Appeals Board found that the date of injury is May 15, 2018, based on Dr. Rostami's May 15, 2018 report declaring the applicant permanent and stationary with 21% whole person impairment, and rejected Hartford's contention that the date should be earlier based on lack of substantial medical evidence before that date.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11574921 · 2022-04-08 · San Jose District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant questions the substantiality of the CPRS diagnosis by treating physicians Robert Aptekar, M.D., and Peter Abaci, M.D., in part, because there is "no evidence that any type of physical examination took place." (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 4:13-15.) However, the summary of applicant's August 27, 2019 office visit with Dr. Aptekar, contained within the September 23, 2019 report of panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) Robert Stone, D.C., specifically states, "The applicant was here for a follow up..." (Dr. Stone's 9/23/19 report, at p. 2, Joint Exhibit 4, emphasis added.) Dr. Aptekar's August 13, 2020 report, as summarized in Dr. Stone's March 8, 2021 report clearly describes a physical examination of applicant noting, "The patient was seen for routine follow up.... Left wrist was tender to palpation. Motion was limited. Rotation was painful. Grip strength was reduced...." (Dr. Stone's 3/8/21 report, at p. 18, Joint Exhibit 1, emphasis added.) The same evidence of a physical examination is true of Dr. Abaci's September 21, 2020 visit note, which was also summarized in Dr. Stone's March 8, 2021 report. The summary states:

The WCJ and WCAB found that the PQME Dr. Stone's opinion, which relied on treating physicians Dr. Aptekar and Dr. Abaci, was substantial medical evidence based on reasonable medical probability and adequate examination, rejecting the contrary opinion of Dr. Navani who was not a PQME and did not review all records.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12210104 · 2022-02-14 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order of December 1, 2021, in which the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that on February 7, 2018, the injured employee, the applicant, sustained industrial injury to his left thumb while employed as a machinist by Sepragen Corporation, insured by The Hartford (defendant). The WCJ also found that the injury resulted in the need for medical treatment and surgery provided by the lien claimant herein, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.). In addition, the WCJ found that the injured employee's case-in-chief was never the subject of a Stipulated Award or Compromise and Release, that the case was administratively closed by defendant, that the current proceeding was initiated by the V.A.

The WCJ and WCAB found that federal law expressly preempts California Labor Code Section 5307.1 and the OMFS with respect to the VA's billings, and that applicable federal billing schedules apply instead.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12756033 · 2022-01-31 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Based on the evidence and applicant's credible testimony, applicant meets his burden of proof according to Labor Code sections 3202 and 3202.5. The court finds applicant has a compensable injury to his lumbar spine, left leg and left hip.

The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight, and the evidence including applicant's credible testimony and documentation supported compensability despite defendant's surveillance video argument.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ13764471 · 2022-10-11 · Pomona 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12535594 · 2021-06-10 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the Findings and Order was issued and served by mail on applicant to her address as listed in the Official Address Record on March 25, 2021. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Monday, April 19, 2021 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on April 22, 2021 is untimely and must be dismissed.

The petition was filed after the 25-day statutory period for reconsideration had expired, making it untimely and depriving the Board of jurisdiction.

Official decision · page 2 →