California WCABLaw firm

Luna, Levering & Holmes

Luna, Levering & Holmes is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (1) and Reopening / new and further disability (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Salinas.

Decisions: 8
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 6

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 2
Salinas 2
Anaheim 1
Los Angeles 1
Marina del Rey 1
Van Nuys 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.

4 for the defense
2 returned for more record
1 for the applicant

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ10755277 · 2024-05-20 · Salinas District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, acting in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 7, 2024, whereby the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her neck (with headaches), bilateral shoulders, gastroesophageal reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, and psyche. The F&O also denied applicant's Petition to Reopen for New & Further Disability under Labor Code section 5410, where applicant failed to show that she suffered any "new and further" disability or compensable consequence disability related to her original injury. The WCJ also found that applicant's claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations set forth in Labor Code section 5410.
The WCJ found no new and further disability within five years of the original injury and barred the claim by the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision for further review of the merits and record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11748300 · 2026-05-22 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant SIBTF seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) previously served as defense counsel in this matter.
The petition was dismissed as moot because the WCJ recused herself and the matter was reassigned.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19771743 · 2025-10-27 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration and return this matter to this trial level. Upon return, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside the Stipulation and set a hearing as there is currently no evidence admitted into the record regarding defendant's contentions. At the hearing, the parties will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ. After the WCJ issues a decision, either party may then timely seek reconsideration of that decision.
The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because no evidence of good cause to set aside the Stipulation and Award had been admitted into the record; the matter was remanded for a hearing to develop the record.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ6788916 · 2025-10-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, petitioners seek intervention from the Appeals Board with respect to scheduling of hearings. As stated above, scheduling of hearings has been delegated to the district offices by way of the WCAB Rules. Moreover, petitioners seek a remedy based on the pleadings that they have submitted, which is not permitted under the WCAB Rules. Moreover, no record has been created that we would enable us to meaningfully address the merits of their arguments.
Scheduling of hearings is delegated to district offices by WCAB Rules; petitioners sought a remedy not permitted under the rules and failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10243805 · 2025-10-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.8Here, the WCJ must first create a record and determine the preliminary issue of whether the stipulation to occupational code 340 in the Stipulations should be set aside. Then, it may be that the WCJ must admit additional evidence to consider the later stipulation to occupational code 390, in order to determine the effect of the finding by WCJ Walker of 390, and whether it was a valid finding. At this juncture, because of these underlying issues, we cannot determine whether there was a proper basis to reopen the case. Therefore, we rescind the F&O in its entirety.
The WCJ must first create a record and determine the preliminary issue of whether the stipulation to occupational code 340 should be set aside and whether the later stipulation to 390 is valid; without this, the basis to reopen cannot be determined.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ15495436 · 2025-02-18 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal (Petition) and the December 24, 2024 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, we determine that the Petition seeks reconsideration of non- final orders and will be dismissed. In addition, based on our review of the record, we will deny removal. We will dismiss applicant's subsequent Petition for Removal.
The petition sought reconsideration of non-final orders and was dismissed as untimely under amended Labor Code section 5909, which requires the Appeals Board to act within 60 days of case transmission; the case was transmitted on December 19, 2024, and the decision was timely issued on February 18, 2025.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7862936 · 2021-06-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of applicant's (pro per) Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the Petition as one seeking reconsideration and as one seeking removal.
The petitions were dismissed because the WCJ's decision was not a final order, the petition for removal was untimely, and the petitions for disqualification were moot due to reassignment of the WCJ.
Official decision · page 1 →

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.

LUNA, LEVERING & HOLMES
LUNA LEVERING & HOLMES

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the defense

2 returned for more record

1 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.

ADJ10755277 · 2024-05-20 · Salinas District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, acting in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 7, 2024, whereby the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her neck (with headaches), bilateral shoulders, gastroesophageal reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, and psyche. The F&O also denied applicant's Petition to Reopen for New & Further Disability under Labor Code section 5410, where applicant failed to show that she suffered any "new and further" disability or compensable consequence disability related to her original injury. The WCJ also found that applicant's claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations set forth in Labor Code section 5410.

The WCJ found no new and further disability within five years of the original injury and barred the claim by the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision for further review of the merits and record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11748300 · 2026-05-22 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant SIBTF seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) previously served as defense counsel in this matter.

The petition was dismissed as moot because the WCJ recused herself and the matter was reassigned.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19771743 · 2025-10-27 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration and return this matter to this trial level. Upon return, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside the Stipulation and set a hearing as there is currently no evidence admitted into the record regarding defendant's contentions. At the hearing, the parties will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ. After the WCJ issues a decision, either party may then timely seek reconsideration of that decision.

The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because no evidence of good cause to set aside the Stipulation and Award had been admitted into the record; the matter was remanded for a hearing to develop the record.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ6788916 · 2025-10-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, petitioners seek intervention from the Appeals Board with respect to scheduling of hearings. As stated above, scheduling of hearings has been delegated to the district offices by way of the WCAB Rules. Moreover, petitioners seek a remedy based on the pleadings that they have submitted, which is not permitted under the WCAB Rules. Moreover, no record has been created that we would enable us to meaningfully address the merits of their arguments.

Scheduling of hearings is delegated to district offices by WCAB Rules; petitioners sought a remedy not permitted under the rules and failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10243805 · 2025-10-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.8Here, the WCJ must first create a record and determine the preliminary issue of whether the stipulation to occupational code 340 in the Stipulations should be set aside. Then, it may be that the WCJ must admit additional evidence to consider the later stipulation to occupational code 390, in order to determine the effect of the finding by WCJ Walker of 390, and whether it was a valid finding. At this juncture, because of these underlying issues, we cannot determine whether there was a proper basis to reopen the case. Therefore, we rescind the F&O in its entirety.

The WCJ must first create a record and determine the preliminary issue of whether the stipulation to occupational code 340 should be set aside and whether the later stipulation to 390 is valid; without this, the basis to reopen cannot be determined.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ15495436 · 2025-02-18 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal (Petition) and the December 24, 2024 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, we determine that the Petition seeks reconsideration of non- final orders and will be dismissed. In addition, based on our review of the record, we will deny removal. We will dismiss applicant's subsequent Petition for Removal.

The petition sought reconsideration of non-final orders and was dismissed as untimely under amended Labor Code section 5909, which requires the Appeals Board to act within 60 days of case transmission; the case was transmitted on December 19, 2024, and the decision was timely issued on February 18, 2025.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7862936 · 2021-06-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of applicant's (pro per) Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the Petition as one seeking reconsideration and as one seeking removal.

The petitions were dismissed because the WCJ's decision was not a final order, the petition for removal was untimely, and the petitions for disqualification were moot due to reassignment of the WCJ.

Official decision · page 1 →