California WCABLaw firm

Lerner, Moore, Silva, Cunningham & Rubel

Lerner, Moore, Silva, Cunningham & Rubel is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Jurisdiction / venue (2) and Permanent disability rating (2). They were heard most often at San Bernardino, then Riverside. The firm it meets most often is Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen (1).

Decisions: 11
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 5

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 9 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

8 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

San Bernardino 6
Riverside 2
Pomona 1
San Bernadino 1
Santa Barbara 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
4 returned for more record
2 for the applicant

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ11055389 · 2025-04-07 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.5For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Awards of January 3, 2025 is GRANTED.
The WCJ's permanent disability rating was deferred due to insufficient development of the record on the application of the Combined Values Chart and apportionment, requiring further analysis under the Vigil en banc decision.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10661601 · 2024-05-21 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a March 12, 2021 Joint Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) wherein a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, and bilateral shoulders. The WCJ also found the July 24, 2020 report of treater, Dr. Khalid Ahmed, to be inadmissible. Applicant alleges that the report should have been admitted under Labor Code section2 5502(d)(3) as it was unavailable at the time of the July 6, 2020 mandatory settlement conference (MSC).
The July 24, 2020 medical report was not available at the July 6, 2020 MSC and thus should be admitted under Labor Code section 5502(d)(3). Due process and fair hearing principles support admitting the report to ensure full development of the evidentiary record and substantial evidence support.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8129185 · 2022-03-09 · San Bernardino District OfficeStatute of limitationsmixed
Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ issued Joint Findings of Fact on October 18, 2020, determining that applicants' claim for death benefits in Case No. ADJ8129185 (injury through December 1, 2011) was barred under Section 5406(b). (Finding of Fact No. 2). The WCJ further found that defendant failed in its burden of proof to establish that benefits were barred under Section 5406(b) in ADJ11011618 (May 4, 2016 injury) and in ADJ11011740 (injury through June 10, 2016). (Finding of Fact No. 5.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ observed that the application for adjudication of claim (death benefits) listed both Case Nos. ADJ11011618 and ADJ11011740, and because both of those cases were within the requisite one year of date of death and 240 weeks from date of injury, the application was timely filed as to those claimed injuries. The WCJ further determined section 5410 would not preclude applicant from seeking death benefits. (Finding of Fact No. 6.)
The WCJ found that death benefits claim in ADJ8129185 was barred by section 5406(b) due to untimely filing, but claims in ADJ11011618 and ADJ11011740 were timely filed within 240 weeks and one year of death, and the WCAB affirmed this finding.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ9598012 · 2021-04-29 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award, (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 12, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right shoulder, right elbow, right wrist, right hand, and in the form of complex regional pain syndrome in her right upper extremity; that she did not sustain injury AOE/COE in the form of left carpal tunnel syndrome; and that the injury caused 70% permanent disability.
The WCJ found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment for left carpal tunnel syndrome, which was not contested on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11612658 · 2021-02-19 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.53. The heart presumption of Labor Code section 3212.5 does not extend a presumption of injury to the kidney.
The heart presumption of Labor Code section 3212.5 does not extend to injury to the kidney, as affirmed by the WCAB.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ7264817 · 2023-11-13 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.
The Appeals Board rescinded the prior WCJ decision and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the matter is pending on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10948627 · 2023-08-18 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of an Award, issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 30, 2023 wherein the WCJ approved a stipulated settlement agreement. Defendant contends that the Award should be rescinded because it is based on commutation calculations that were incorrect and both parties relied on the erroneous calculations. We have not received an answer from applicant.
The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because the WCJ had not yet considered the Petition as a Petition to set aside the Award, and the WCAB returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record and issue a decision on the Petition to set aside.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9714303 · 2023-02-07 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.32. Identity of Petitioner: Defendant has filed the Petition. Timeliness: The petition is timely. Verification: A verification is attached to the petition.
The Petition for Reconsideration was timely and properly filed, but the Board denied it based on the WCJ's findings that both parties violated Labor Code section 4062.3(f) and neither acted with clean hands.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ496861 · 2021-11-08 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
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.

LERNER, MOORE, SILVA, CUNNINGHAM & RUBEL
Lerner, Moore, Silva, Cunningham & Rubel
LERNER MOORE
LERNER, MOORE, SILVA, CUNNINGHAM

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 →

Lerner, Moore, Silva, Cunningham & Rubel

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

7 for the defense

4 returned for more record

2 for the applicant

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ11055389 · 2025-04-07 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.5For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Awards of January 3, 2025 is GRANTED.

The WCJ's permanent disability rating was deferred due to insufficient development of the record on the application of the Combined Values Chart and apportionment, requiring further analysis under the Vigil en banc decision.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10661601 · 2024-05-21 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a March 12, 2021 Joint Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) wherein a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, and bilateral shoulders. The WCJ also found the July 24, 2020 report of treater, Dr. Khalid Ahmed, to be inadmissible. Applicant alleges that the report should have been admitted under Labor Code section2 5502(d)(3) as it was unavailable at the time of the July 6, 2020 mandatory settlement conference (MSC).

The July 24, 2020 medical report was not available at the July 6, 2020 MSC and thus should be admitted under Labor Code section 5502(d)(3). Due process and fair hearing principles support admitting the report to ensure full development of the evidentiary record and substantial evidence support.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8129185 · 2022-03-09 · San Bernardino District OfficeStatute of limitationsmixed

Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ issued Joint Findings of Fact on October 18, 2020, determining that applicants' claim for death benefits in Case No. ADJ8129185 (injury through December 1, 2011) was barred under Section 5406(b). (Finding of Fact No. 2). The WCJ further found that defendant failed in its burden of proof to establish that benefits were barred under Section 5406(b) in ADJ11011618 (May 4, 2016 injury) and in ADJ11011740 (injury through June 10, 2016). (Finding of Fact No. 5.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ observed that the application for adjudication of claim (death benefits) listed both Case Nos. ADJ11011618 and ADJ11011740, and because both of those cases were within the requisite one year of date of death and 240 weeks from date of injury, the application was timely filed as to those claimed injuries. The WCJ further determined section 5410 would not preclude applicant from seeking death benefits. (Finding of Fact No. 6.)

The WCJ found that death benefits claim in ADJ8129185 was barred by section 5406(b) due to untimely filing, but claims in ADJ11011618 and ADJ11011740 were timely filed within 240 weeks and one year of death, and the WCAB affirmed this finding.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ9598012 · 2021-04-29 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award, (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 12, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right shoulder, right elbow, right wrist, right hand, and in the form of complex regional pain syndrome in her right upper extremity; that she did not sustain injury AOE/COE in the form of left carpal tunnel syndrome; and that the injury caused 70% permanent disability.

The WCJ found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment for left carpal tunnel syndrome, which was not contested on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11612658 · 2021-02-19 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.53. The heart presumption of Labor Code section 3212.5 does not extend a presumption of injury to the kidney.

The heart presumption of Labor Code section 3212.5 does not extend to injury to the kidney, as affirmed by the WCAB.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ7264817 · 2023-11-13 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

The Appeals Board rescinded the prior WCJ decision and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the matter is pending on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10948627 · 2023-08-18 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of an Award, issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 30, 2023 wherein the WCJ approved a stipulated settlement agreement. Defendant contends that the Award should be rescinded because it is based on commutation calculations that were incorrect and both parties relied on the erroneous calculations. We have not received an answer from applicant.

The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because the WCJ had not yet considered the Petition as a Petition to set aside the Award, and the WCAB returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record and issue a decision on the Petition to set aside.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9714303 · 2023-02-07 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.32. Identity of Petitioner: Defendant has filed the Petition. Timeliness: The petition is timely. Verification: A verification is attached to the petition.

The Petition for Reconsideration was timely and properly filed, but the Board denied it based on the WCJ's findings that both parties violated Labor Code section 4062.3(f) and neither acted with clean hands.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ496861 · 2021-11-08 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

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

Official decision · page 2 →