Law Offices of Ramin Younessi

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 12
• Anaheim 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• San Bernardino 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
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 14 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.

• ADJ12055950 · 2025-01-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant Dental Trauma Center (DTC) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on October 10, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that DTC did not prove that an industrial injury occurred in this case, and that they did not establish that they provided valid medical-legal services.

  The WCJ found no industrial injury based on the medical evidence, but the Appeals Board found the record incomplete and granted reconsideration to allow further review of the injury AOE/COE issue.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11564195 · 2024-07-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCA issued the Report dated December 8, 2021, however, the record does not include the decision that is challenged by applicant. Moreover, the record does not contain any identification of the stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.

  The Appeals Board could not conduct meaningful review or render a decision based on an incomplete record, as the record did not include the challenged decision or identification of stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10054510 · 2024-06-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7WHETHER CVS' PROVISION OF A WALKIE-TALKIE AND THE APPLICANT'S COMPLETION OF LOSS PREVENTION PAPERWORK ARE ENOUGH CONTROL TO TRANSFER RISK FROM UNIFIED TO CVS IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF A SPECIAL EMPLOYER.

  The WCJ found CVS was the special employer based on undisputed testimony that CVS controlled the applicant's work activities, including daily instructions, reporting, and discipline, beyond mere provision of equipment and paperwork.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15809866 · 2024-04-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a February 22, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found good cause for the issuance of additional Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) panels in the specialties of ophthalmology, neurology, and psychiatry based upon the opinion of the orthopedic QME, Dr. Joanne Halbrecht, who recommended QMEs in those specialties after finding applicant's claims of injury to her "head, eyes, and stress" to be outside her area of expertise. (F&O, p. 3.)

  The orthopedic QME, Dr. Joanne Halbrecht, recommended additional QME panels in specialties outside her expertise due to applicant's claims of injury to head, eyes, and stress, establishing good cause for additional panels.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8529696 · 2022-07-26 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on September 11, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found in case ADJ8529696 that applicant sustained injury to his psyche and internal systems in the form of hypertension, stroke, obstructive sleep apnea, erectile dysfunction, headaches, diabetes and gastroesophageal reflux disease resulting in need of further medical treatment, temporary disability from June 1, 2012, through June 1, 2014, and permanent partial disability of 38%. The WCJ also found that case ADJ9280892 is duplicative of case ADJ8529696. Applicant contends in his petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not finding that the injury caused permanent total disability. Defendant filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which she recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied.

  The WCJ found permanent partial disability of 38%, but the applicant contended the injury caused permanent total disability; the petition for reconsideration was granted, but the parties resolved the matter by compromise and release, which was approved by the Board.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11548913 · 2021-05-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8*** 3. Exhibit 2 is admitted in evidence. 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that good cause exists to reopen

  The WCJ found good cause to reopen based on Dr. Miller's QME report showing medical evidence of concentration and memory issues and no bad faith by applicant; the WCAB affirmed and amended the order to admit the report.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ18564655 · 2024-08-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the Order setting the matter for trial issued on February 1, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11376123 · 2024-07-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3In this case, the arbitrator issued the Findings and Order on November 9, 2020, and applicant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration on November 30, 2020. Thereafter, the Appeals Board failed to act on applicant' s petition within 60 days of its filing, through no fault of petitioner. Therefore, considering that applicant filed a timely petition and that the Appeals Board's failure to act on that petition was in error, we find that our time to act on applicant's petition was equitably tolled until 60 days after April 23, 2021.

  The Appeals Board failed to act on the timely petition for reconsideration within 60 days due to no fault of petitioner; equitable tolling applied, so reconsideration was granted and the matter remanded.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ17627257 · 2024-04-03 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The petition in this matter was filed on December 7, 2023. This was more than 25 days after petitioner's attorney's service on October 30, 2023 of the WCJ's October 27, 2023 decision, and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.

  The petition for removal was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision and was therefore untimely under the applicable regulations.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8668714 · 2023-07-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will vacate our order granting reconsideration, dismiss the petition as one for reconsideration, and deny the petition as one for removal.2

  The WCJ's order was interlocutory and not final, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed; removal was denied because petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11645110 · 2021-12-06 · Los Angeles 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ's analysis persuasive and determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8494732 · 2021-07-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2After considering the compromise and release in light of the entire record, we conclude that the settlement amount is adequate and that the agreement is in the best interest of applicant.

  The Appeals Board found the settlement amount adequate and in the best interest of the applicant, and the attorneys' fee reasonable.

  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 Ramin Younessi
• LAW OFFICES OF RAMIN R. YOUNESSI
• LAW OFFICES OF RAMIN YOUNESSI
• Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi
• LAW OFFICES OF RAMIN R. YOUNESSI , APC
• LAW OFFICE OF RAMIN YOUNESSI, ESQ.
• Law Office of Ramin Younessi

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.