California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Schlossberg & Umholtz

Law Offices of Schlossberg & Umholtz is named in 25 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (3) and Sanctions under Labor Code §5813 (2). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Asvar Law (2).

Decisions: 25
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 10
District offices: 12

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 16 of 20 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.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

AOE/COE
323%
Medical treatment / UR / IMR
323%
Sanctions under Labor Code §5813
215%
Apportionment
18%
Cumulative trauma
18%
Jurisdiction / venue
18%
Permanent disability rating
18%
Reopening / new and further disability
18%

13 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

6 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

Los Angeles 4
Van Nuys 4
Marina del Rey 3
Santa Ana 3
Anaheim 2
Sacramento 2
Salinas 2
Long Beach 1
Marina del Ray 1
San Diego 1
San Jose 1
Santa Rosa 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.

12 for the defense
8 for the applicant
3 returned for more record

Counted over 23 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.

ADJ15211632 · 2026-06-25 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2026 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that a prior utilization review (UR) decision denying authorization for a requested treatment barred a subsequent request for authorization (RFA) for the same treatment submitted on December 4, 2025. The WCJ further determined that the UR decision issued on December 8, 2025 regarding authorization for a wheelchair accessible hotel room was untimely but that the requested services were not medically necessary.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in concluding the prior UR decision barred the subsequent request and that the December 8, 2025 UR decision was untimely but the requested treatment was medically necessary, warranting reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14930871 · 2025-05-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.7We are unable to conduct meaningful review of the Petition or render a decision based on an incomplete record. Thus, we cannot consider the merits of the decision. Accordingly, we grant the Petition for Reconsideration, and as our decision after reconsideration, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return the matter to the trial level. When the WCA issues a new decision, any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.
The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking a proper transcript, making meaningful review impossible, so it rescinded the prior Findings and Order and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ11255137 · 2024-10-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficeCumulative traumadeferred
Determinative passage · p.7While we agree that the WCJ properly found that applicant had sustained injury AOE/COE but based on the record before us, the issue of whether there is one or two cumulative trauma injuries requires further study. Moreover, the issue of the date of injury pursuant to section 5412 also requires further study because determination of the date requires that the issue of whether there was one or two periods of cumulative trauma be determined.
The issue of whether there is one or two cumulative trauma injuries and the date of injury require further study, so final decision is deferred.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ15987729 · 2024-10-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6A decision issued 6/26/2024 finding that Applicant had not met her burden of proof regarding applicant being allowed to treat outside Defendant's MPN.
Applicant did not meet her burden of proof to show that Defendant's MPN was invalid or that she was denied reasonable medical treatment outside the MPN.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ10849328 · 2024-08-01 · Salinas District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant's Petition to Reopen was timely filed; that based on the determination provided in a report written by PQME Dr. Stone (PQME) an MRI of applicant's right shoulder is necessary, as well as a determination regarding further disability to the knees; that applicant shall be allowed to assert a claim for psychological injury within her Petition to Reopen, based on psychological symptoms reported by the PQME in his first report; and, that based on the PQME's determinations and request for an additional PQME in psychology to evaluate applicant, the parties should proceed to agree on an Agreed Medical Evaluator, or to request an additional QME, to evaluate applicant's psychological complaints, and to assess the date of onset, causation, and need for treatment. The WCJ ordered that: "the parties proceed with obtaining the MRI of the right shoulder as requested by PQME Dr. Stone and that the parties proceed with selection of either an AME, or request for an additional QME panel in the specialty of psychology to address the Applicant's symptoms, need for treatment and determine causation and the date this condition arose, as requested by PQME Dr. Stone."
The WCJ found the Petition to Reopen was timely filed, a threshold jurisdictional issue, making the decision final and subject to reconsideration rather than removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10409544 · 2024-06-28 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3I. The WCJ did not err by rating applicant's permanent disability using Occupational Group 370
The WCJ's use of Occupational Group 370 for rating permanent disability was supported by substantial evidence including applicant's job duties and testimony, and the Disability Evaluator's opinion.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12017211 · 2022-01-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.9Here, having reviewed the trial record, including Dr. Kattar's report, it appears that the record does not contain substantial medical evidence upon which a finding on the issue of injury AOE/COE can be made. Dr. Kattar requested additional records and the results of diagnostic testing and thus his opinions currently lack a solid underlying basis. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brooks) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 785, 797 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 379]; Escobedo, supra; Hegglin, supra.) Furthermore, he does not offer an opinion regarding the
The record does not contain substantial medical evidence to support a finding on AOE/COE; Dr. Kattar's opinion was not based on sufficient records or diagnostic testing and did not address all relevant causation factors.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ13886990 · 2021-09-07 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Orders (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 18, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her left knee on February 20, 2020, or August 17, 2020. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her injury claim.
The WCJ's denial was based on a QME report that lacked the complete medical record and did not address injury AOE/COE specifically, thus not substantial evidence; the WCAB granted reconsideration to allow supplementation of the medical record and a new QME opinion.
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 →
ADJ14092812 · 2026-04-21 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.31180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. In this matter, no order has issued, whether final or interlocutory. Applicant has not filed a Petition from a "final" order, decision, or award to reconsider as required by sections 5900(a), 5902 and 5903. Instead, applicant has made allegations regarding how his now, former attorney, failed to represent him in the case, which is not appropriate when seeking reconsideration. Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration.
The petition was dismissed because it was not filed from a final order or decision as required by law, and the Appeals Board timely acted on the petition within 60 days of transmission.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11545044 · 2026-01-21 · Marina del Ray District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon general allegations that the WCJ is biased.
The petition failed to show specific facts establishing bias or an unqualified opinion that could not be changed, and the WCJ's opinions were based on evidence and law, not bias.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14930871 · 2025-11-03 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7parties with the arbitrator, if any. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c)(4).) Additionally, the record does not include the arbitrator's summary of evidence containing evidentiary rulings, a description of exhibits admitted into evidence. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c)(7).) Further, petitioner has asserted that the exhibits, as identified by the WCA, are not the correct designation as they proposed, and that the failure of the WCA to create a record with the parties has deprived them of due process.
The Appeals Board found that the record was incomplete and that due process was not afforded because the exhibits were not properly designated and the record lacked minutes and summary of evidence, thus granting reconsideration and ordering a complete record to be filed.
Official decision · page 7 →

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.

SCHLOSSBERG & UMHOLTZ
LAW OFFICES OF SCHLOSSBERG & UMHOLTZ
SCHLOSSBERG UMHOLTZ
Law Offices of Schlossberg & Umholtz
Schlossberg & Umholtz
Schlossberg Umholtz

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 Schlossberg & Umholtz

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

12 for the defense

8 for the applicant

3 returned for more record

Counted over 23 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.

ADJ15211632 · 2026-06-25 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2026 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that a prior utilization review (UR) decision denying authorization for a requested treatment barred a subsequent request for authorization (RFA) for the same treatment submitted on December 4, 2025. The WCJ further determined that the UR decision issued on December 8, 2025 regarding authorization for a wheelchair accessible hotel room was untimely but that the requested services were not medically necessary.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in concluding the prior UR decision barred the subsequent request and that the December 8, 2025 UR decision was untimely but the requested treatment was medically necessary, warranting reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14930871 · 2025-05-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.7We are unable to conduct meaningful review of the Petition or render a decision based on an incomplete record. Thus, we cannot consider the merits of the decision. Accordingly, we grant the Petition for Reconsideration, and as our decision after reconsideration, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return the matter to the trial level. When the WCA issues a new decision, any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.

The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking a proper transcript, making meaningful review impossible, so it rescinded the prior Findings and Order and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ11255137 · 2024-10-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficeCumulative traumadeferred

Determinative passage · p.7While we agree that the WCJ properly found that applicant had sustained injury AOE/COE but based on the record before us, the issue of whether there is one or two cumulative trauma injuries requires further study. Moreover, the issue of the date of injury pursuant to section 5412 also requires further study because determination of the date requires that the issue of whether there was one or two periods of cumulative trauma be determined.

The issue of whether there is one or two cumulative trauma injuries and the date of injury require further study, so final decision is deferred.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ15987729 · 2024-10-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6A decision issued 6/26/2024 finding that Applicant had not met her burden of proof regarding applicant being allowed to treat outside Defendant's MPN.

Applicant did not meet her burden of proof to show that Defendant's MPN was invalid or that she was denied reasonable medical treatment outside the MPN.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ10849328 · 2024-08-01 · Salinas District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant's Petition to Reopen was timely filed; that based on the determination provided in a report written by PQME Dr. Stone (PQME) an MRI of applicant's right shoulder is necessary, as well as a determination regarding further disability to the knees; that applicant shall be allowed to assert a claim for psychological injury within her Petition to Reopen, based on psychological symptoms reported by the PQME in his first report; and, that based on the PQME's determinations and request for an additional PQME in psychology to evaluate applicant, the parties should proceed to agree on an Agreed Medical Evaluator, or to request an additional QME, to evaluate applicant's psychological complaints, and to assess the date of onset, causation, and need for treatment. The WCJ ordered that: "the parties proceed with obtaining the MRI of the right shoulder as requested by PQME Dr. Stone and that the parties proceed with selection of either an AME, or request for an additional QME panel in the specialty of psychology to address the Applicant's symptoms, need for treatment and determine causation and the date this condition arose, as requested by PQME Dr. Stone."

The WCJ found the Petition to Reopen was timely filed, a threshold jurisdictional issue, making the decision final and subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10409544 · 2024-06-28 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3I. The WCJ did not err by rating applicant's permanent disability using Occupational Group 370

The WCJ's use of Occupational Group 370 for rating permanent disability was supported by substantial evidence including applicant's job duties and testimony, and the Disability Evaluator's opinion.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12017211 · 2022-01-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.9Here, having reviewed the trial record, including Dr. Kattar's report, it appears that the record does not contain substantial medical evidence upon which a finding on the issue of injury AOE/COE can be made. Dr. Kattar requested additional records and the results of diagnostic testing and thus his opinions currently lack a solid underlying basis. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brooks) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 785, 797 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 379]; Escobedo, supra; Hegglin, supra.) Furthermore, he does not offer an opinion regarding the

The record does not contain substantial medical evidence to support a finding on AOE/COE; Dr. Kattar's opinion was not based on sufficient records or diagnostic testing and did not address all relevant causation factors.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ13886990 · 2021-09-07 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Orders (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 18, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her left knee on February 20, 2020, or August 17, 2020. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her injury claim.

The WCJ's denial was based on a QME report that lacked the complete medical record and did not address injury AOE/COE specifically, thus not substantial evidence; the WCAB granted reconsideration to allow supplementation of the medical record and a new QME opinion.

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 →

ADJ14092812 · 2026-04-21 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.31180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. In this matter, no order has issued, whether final or interlocutory. Applicant has not filed a Petition from a "final" order, decision, or award to reconsider as required by sections 5900(a), 5902 and 5903. Instead, applicant has made allegations regarding how his now, former attorney, failed to represent him in the case, which is not appropriate when seeking reconsideration. Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration.

The petition was dismissed because it was not filed from a final order or decision as required by law, and the Appeals Board timely acted on the petition within 60 days of transmission.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11545044 · 2026-01-21 · Marina del Ray District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon general allegations that the WCJ is biased.

The petition failed to show specific facts establishing bias or an unqualified opinion that could not be changed, and the WCJ's opinions were based on evidence and law, not bias.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14930871 · 2025-11-03 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7parties with the arbitrator, if any. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c)(4).) Additionally, the record does not include the arbitrator's summary of evidence containing evidentiary rulings, a description of exhibits admitted into evidence. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c)(7).) Further, petitioner has asserted that the exhibits, as identified by the WCA, are not the correct designation as they proposed, and that the failure of the WCA to create a record with the parties has deprived them of due process.

The Appeals Board found that the record was incomplete and that due process was not afforded because the exhibits were not properly designated and the record lacked minutes and summary of evidence, thus granting reconsideration and ordering a complete record to be filed.

Official decision · page 7 →