Leviton, Diaz & Ginocchio, INC.

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Anaheim 20
• Bakersfield 6
• Santa Ana 4
• Oakland 2
• Oxnard 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.

• 16 for the applicant
• 11 for the defense
• 8 returned for more record

Counted over 31 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.

• ADJ8015380 · 2026-06-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.18For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the July 2, 2019 Findings and Order is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board deferred the issue of application of section 3600.5(b) because the question of Ohio's reciprocity statute effective date requires further factual development at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ10902369 · 2026-05-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Here, the record is deficient regarding the method of calculating permanent disability considering Vigil. To rebut the CVC, an employee must present evidence explaining what impact their impairments have had upon their ADLs. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that there is effectively an absence of overlap in the impacted ADLs, or an amplified overall functional impact, the employee has rebutted the CVC. Here, PQME Dr. Watkin opined that adding applicant's impairments was appropriate because he cannot squat to spare his low back due to lower extremity joint injuries, and he cannot bend to spare his lower extremity joints due to his low back condition.

  The Appeals Board found the record deficient regarding the method of calculating permanent disability under Vigil, requiring further development of the record for PQME Dr. Watkins to conduct a complete overlap analysis of applicant's ADLs to determine whether impairments should be added or combined.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ12088514 · 2025-10-10 · Anaheim District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on July 22, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as a professional athlete during the period of June 16, 2004 through July 15, 2010, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, cervical spine, hips, feet, ankles, knees, and head; (2) at the time of injury, the employer's workers' compensation earner was Ace American Insurance, administered by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.; (3) Dr. David Kim is disqualified as the Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) for violating AD Rule 41(a)(4); and (4) the reports of Dr. Kim can be sent to a subsequent examiner.

  Dr. Kim prescribed narcotic pain medication to applicant, violating AD Rule 41(a)(4), causing reasonable doubt about his impartiality and integrity, leading to disqualification as QME.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10798775 · 2025-07-21 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.17In this case, we reject as unsupported by the evidence the stipulation of the parties that applicant sustained a specific injury of August 27, 2015 to the upper extremities, and a specific injury of March 5, 2017 to the lower extremities. Based on the lack of substantial medical evidence establishing that applicant sustained any specific injury and based on indications by both physicians that he sustained a cumulative injury to the upper extremities and may have sustained a cumulative injury to the lower extremities as well, we rescind the April 7, 2025 Joint Findings and Awards in their entirety for further hearing and development of the record consistent with this decision.

  The Appeals Board found the medical evidence insufficient to support the specific injury findings and apportionment opinions, leading to rescission of the F&A and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 17 →
• ADJ4336912 · 2025-04-21 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8that her finding that there was no injury AOE/COE in case ADJ418935 was based only on "the findings of Dr. Einbund and the Applicant's credible testimony that the Applicant did not sustain an industrial injury during his employment with AIM Transportation." (Report, at p. 5.) We observe that it is the findings and orders that are ultimately enforceable as a judgment, not the Opinion. (See Lab. Code, § 5806, 5807.) Here, there is no indication in the findings in either case that the WCJ relied on Dr. Mas as anything other than a vocational expert. (See Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 (Nunes I) (Appeals Board en banc); Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894 (Nunes II) (Appeals Board en banc).) The WCJ's clarification in the Report is thus all that is needed to address defendant's contention.

  The WCJ found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment for AIM Transportation based on applicant's credible testimony and medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10789547 · 2025-03-24 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the WCJ for further development of the record on the issue of whether applicant was hired in California, because we conclude in the absence of a

  The Board concluded that the claim is barred under section 3600.5(d) unless applicant can establish he was hired in California on at least one contract during the relevant period. The matter is remanded for further development of the record on this issue.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1112802 · 2024-11-25 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that subject matter jurisdiction exists over applicant's claim of cumulative injury as applicant was a California resident who executed his contract of hire in California, and that the Atlanta Braves were not excluded from subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3600.5(d). The WCJ further found that the forum selection clause in applicant's contract was not enforceable.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that subject matter jurisdiction exists because the applicant's contract of hire was made in California, which confers jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305, and section 3600.5(d) does not exempt the defendant as it applies only when no contract of hire was made in California.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ6579284 · 2024-11-05 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2ultimately may be entitled to an award of 75% permanent disability, we conclude that the WCJ

  The Board concluded that the WCJ must revisit the issue of potential liability and jurisdiction over all teams who employed applicant during the cumulative trauma period, including the Detroit Lions, St. Louis Rams, and Denver Broncos, as the prior findings of insufficient contacts and dismissal of the Denver Broncos were premature and require further development of the record and consideration of due process and substantial justice interests.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ7217330 · 2024-09-10 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the February 21, 2019 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that although applicant had been hired in California, the WCAB nevertheless lacked jurisdiction over his claim due to the presence of a forum selection clause in his contract, requiring him to bring his workers' compensation claim in Wisconsin instead of California. Applicant contests this determination, arguing that the fact of his hire in California renders the forum selection clause unenforceable and makes California an appropriate forum for his claim.

  The WCAB held that if the applicant was hired in California, the forum selection clause in his contract is unenforceable and does not bar WCAB jurisdiction. The WCJ did not make a finding on the hire location, so the case was remanded for that factual determination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9464655 · 2024-08-22 · Anaheim District OfficeApportionmentmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1We issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration on Board Motion in this matter on February 18, 2021 (February Order) to study further the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration. (Lab. Code, § 5900(b).) This is our Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration.

  The board corrected the prior decision to accurately reflect the comparative negligence percentages of the parties involved, including the applicant, third-party truck driver, and defendant employer, and clarified the method for calculating third-party credit based on total damages rather than settlement amount, leading to a mixed outcome with deferred credit determination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10501198 · 2024-05-17 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsmixed

  Determinative passage · p.20The parties also dispute whether applicant's claims both his specific injury claim and his cumulative trauma claim are barred by the statute of limitations found in section 5405, which generally requires that a claim for benefits be commenced within one year of the date of injury, or within one year of the last time any benefits were provided. However, if an employer furnishes medical treatment for an injury, the one-year limitation of section 5405 is tolled, and the injured worker may instead avail himself of the five-year period to commence an action under section 5410. (McDaniel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1016-1017.) "In other words, after the voluntary furnishing of benefits, including medical treatment, section 5410 extends the period within which an original proceeding may be instituted from one to five years." (Ibid., at p. 117.) The one-year limitations period of section 5405 then begins to run again "once a potential claimant has been fully informed that the employer and its carrier disclaim compensation liability for an industrial injury[.]" (Ibid.) The burden of proof for demonstrating

  Applicant's specific injury claim is not barred by section 5405 due to receipt of medical treatment triggering the longer limitations period under section 5410; the cumulative trauma claim's statute of limitations status requires further development of the date of injury under section 5412.

  Official decision · page 20 →
• ADJ6694887 · 2023-11-30 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record. (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton).) Our decision in Hamilton further held that, "for the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 476, italics added.) The WCJ or the WCAB, "may act to develop the record with new evidence if, for example, it concludes that neither side has presented substantial evidence on which a decision could be based." (San Bernardino Community Hospital v. Workers. Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) 74 Cal.App.4th 928 (64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986); see also McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 (63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261) [lack of substantial medical evidence on issue in dispute supported development of record]; M/A Com-Phi v. Workers' Comp, Appeals Bd.

  The record does not establish the agent's physical location at the time of acceptance of the contract in California, so the record must be developed further to determine if a valid oral contract of hire was entered into in California.

  Official decision · page 9 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 14.

• LEVITON, DIAZ & GINOCCHIO
• LEVITON, DIAZ & GINOCCHIO, INC.
• Leviton, Diaz & Ginocchio, Inc.
• Leviton, Diaz & Ginocchio
• LEVITON DIAZ & GINOCCHIO
• LAW OFFICE OF LEVITON, DIAZ & GINOCCHIO
• LEVITON, DIAZ, WHITING & GINOCCHIO
• LEVITON, DIAZ & GINOCCHIO, INC
• LAW OFFICE OF LEVITON DIAZ
• LEVITON DIAZ SANTA ANA LAW
• LEVITON, DIAZ & GINOCHHIO
• LEVITON DIAZ CINOCCHIO

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.