Malmquist, Fields & Camastra

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR2
• Permanent disability rating1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Oxnard 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.

• 5 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ14768185 · 2024-06-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Labor Code § 3600(a)(10) maintains that an injury is not compensable if a claim is filed after [] notice of termination or layoff and the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of the notice of termination or layoff. There are exceptions to this general rule. Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(D) provides that a cumulative trauma injury with a date of injury subsequent to a date of termination or layoff is a valid exception to the post- termination defense.

  The Board found that the applicant did not have both disability and knowledge of the industrial nature of her injury until after the claim was filed, so the post-termination defense does not apply and the date of injury is February 28, 2022.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12758878 · 2024-05-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the February 20, 2024 Findings and Award is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the February 20, 2024 Findings and Award is AFFIRMED except that Finding number 1 is AMENDED as follows: 1. the applicant, while employed during the period between October 25, 2018 to October 25, 2019 as a housekeeper, occupational group number 340 at Los Angeles, California, by SKYLINE HEALTHCARE AND WELLNESS CENTER LLC, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was COMP WEST sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right and left shoulder, right and left wrist, and right and left knee.

  The Board amended the injury findings to include additional body parts based on the QME's medical reports, finding industrial injury to multiple body parts beyond those originally found by the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11143930 · 2023-09-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The September 7, 2022 Independent Medical Review determination of the administrative director clearly asserts as its rational the statement that Dr. Rothi's June 30, 2022 RFA was for "home health aide assistance four hours a day, two days a week for six months for bathing, house mobility, and hygiene (failed back surgery, bilateral knee, bilateral shoulder pain) quantity in months #6". (Exhibit 16, IMR Determination, dated September 7, 2022, page 2). The rationale continued on page 3 indicating that "the request is for six months of continuous home healthcare without evaluating for compliance and the continued need for these services." This is factually incorrect. Dr. Rothi's June 30, 2022 RFA makes no mention of six months. It requests home health assistance for "4 hours a day, X 2 days a week PRN". Furthermore Dr. Rothi's accompanying PR- 2 report clearly indicates a follow-up appointment scheduled for August 10, 2022. (See applicant's Exhibit 21, PR-2 reports by Dr. Rothi up through September 20, 2022, pages 8 through 11). On this basis it is clear that the determination of the administrative director was the result of a plainly

  The IMR determination incorrectly stated that Dr. Rothi's June 30, 2022 RFA was for six months of continuous home healthcare, when in fact the RFA made no mention of six months and the PR-2 report indicated a follow-up appointment was scheduled for August 10, 2022. This was a plainly erroneous finding of fact, not subject to expert opinion.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11091794 · 2022-07-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3This WCJ accepts that the proofs of service regarding the UR denials, with the exception of one, do appear to have been mailed to applicant's counsel. However, that does not meet the requirement of Labor Code section 4610.... [A] UR decision not only must be timely made; it must be timely communicated. A UR decision that is not timely communicated is of no use and defeats the legislative intent of a UR "process that balances the interests of speed and accuracy, emphasizing the quick resolution of treatment requests... " (Sandhagen, supra, 44 Cal. 4th at p. 241.). Thus, section 4610... imposes further mandatory time requirements for communicating a UR decision. These time limits run from the date the UR decision is made, even if the UR decision is made in less than the five days allowed...

  The WCJ and the panel found that the Utilization Review (UR) determinations of Dr. Patterson's May 17, 2021 RFA were untimely because the UR decisions were not timely communicated to the applicant or the applicant's primary treating physician as required by Labor Code section 4610, supported by evidence including emails and letters from applicant's counsel showing lack of receipt of UR denials.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13427485 · 2024-05-14 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Order Dismissing Cases (Order) dated October 6, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), dismissed both of applicant's cases without prejudice.

  The petition for reconsideration was untimely, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration on its own motion. The dismissal was found invalid because the applicant's attorney's hearing representative appeared at trial, satisfying appearance requirements, making the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and the dismissal order void.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2182149 · 2011-04-11Reconsideration / removalmoot

  Determinative passage · p.26 In preparing this opinion for filing and service, we discovered that this matter was settled

  The case settled by Compromise and Release before the Board ruled on the petition, rendering the petition for removal moot.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.