Newhouse and Creager

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 10
• Van Nuys 4
• Marina del Rey 2
• Oxnard 2
• Long Beach 1
• San Bernardino 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 defense
• 4 returned for more record
• 2 for the applicant

Counted over 21 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.

• ADJ18157692 · 2025-10-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2record or explaining the need for further development of the record and thus, the order violates the

  The WCJ took the matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining the need for further development, violating due process and constituting irreparable harm; removal is proper and the matter is returned to trial level to create a record.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ8923383 · 2025-05-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeCumulative traumadeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant X-Ray Productions petitions for reconsideration of the March 5, 2024 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed during the period of November 22, 1998 through January 1, 2000 did not sustain industrial injury as a result of cumulative trauma. Petitioner contends that the WCJ erred in failing to find a cumulative trauma. Petitioner argues that the evidence presented pursuant to Labor Code sections 5500.5 and 5412 establish a cumulative trauma with an end date of either December 5, 1998 or November 22, 1998. Petitioner also argues that the WCJ denied defendant due process by denying defendant the right to examine witnesses at trial and conduct discovery. Finally, petitioner contends that there is new evidence which should be considered by the WCJ.

  The Board did not rule on the merits but rescinded the prior Findings and Order and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings after the parties settled by Compromise and Release.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1556152 · 2025-02-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility Intercare for Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, in liquidation (CIGA) both seek reconsideration of the November 14, 2024 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that in ADJ1556152, in relevant part, applicant is entitled to 90 percent permanent disability after the application of apportionment pursuant to Labor Code1 sections 4663 and 4664.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review whether apportionment was properly applied and deferred final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1424684 · 2024-08-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, amend the F&A in ADJ1556152 and the F&O in ADJ1424684 to find that future medical treatment for applicant's back and right leg shall be by defendant Clarendon (Finding of Fact 8 (ADJ1424684) Finding of Fact 12 (ADJ1556152)), and we will defer the issue of calculation of the award and of attorney's fees in ADJ1556152 (Findings of Fact 11 and 13), and otherwise affirm the F&A in ADJ1556152 and the F&Os in ADJ1424684 and ADJ11379405.

  The WCAB amended the findings to assign sole responsibility for future medical treatment of the back and right leg to Clarendon, excluding Hani/CIGA from this responsibility.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8923383 · 2024-05-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The Applicant was a credible witness who testified he physically did not work for any employer as a production assistant, electrician, or grip after the specific injury of November 22, 1998 (Minutes of Hearing February 2, 2024, page 5, lines 3-6). Although the Applicant was compensated for work until approximately June 1999, the Applicant did not perform any physical work for the employer, but clocked in as he was owed "favors" from work he preformed [sic]on other jobs (Minutes of Hearing February 2, 2024, page 4, lines 13-17).

  The WCJ found no compensable cumulative trauma injury because the applicant did not perform physical work after the specific injury date, which is necessary to support a cumulative trauma claim. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the merits and record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8965291 · 2024-05-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett halted trial proceedings in eight cases by filing petitions for reconsideration that were indisputably without merit and filed for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay. Most of these petitions were filed on the morning of trial without any advance notice to the court, opposing counsel, or witnesses. Their conduct was deliberate, which is evidenced by both the pattern of filing such petitions in eight separate cases and their failure to appear in each of these cases after the petition for reconsideration was filed.

  The petitions for reconsideration were filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, were indisputably without merit, and caused significant delays and resource waste, warranting full sanctions.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15382349 · 2024-04-10Sanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted removal in these matters on our own motion to provide an opportunity to study and address the issues of sanctions and costs under Labor Code section 58131. Having completed our review, we now issue an Order of Consolidation and a Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions and Costs (En Banc).

  The Appeals Board found that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, which were indisputably without merit, justifying sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8965291 · 2024-04-10Sanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.20NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that absent written objection in which good cause to the contrary is demonstrated, within twenty (20) days plus five (5) additional days for mailing (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1), 10600) after service of this Notice that pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and Appeals Board Rule 10421 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421) the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board will order SUSAN GARRETT (CA BAR #195580), to pay sanctions and reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and costs, as follows:

  Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett repeatedly filed petitions for reconsideration of non-final orders, with the apparent intent to delay trial dates after being denied continuances, despite prior notice that such petitions were improper and sanctionable.

  Official decision · page 20 →
• ADJ8051313 · 2023-09-15 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the 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 stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny reconsideration.

  The lien claimant failed to meet the burden of proof to show that the defendant neglected or refused to provide reasonably necessary medical treatment outside the MPN. The applicant had stipulated to treat within the MPN at hearings, and no evidence was presented to show denial of care by the defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11505778 · 2022-03-25 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3[35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].)

  The PQME report was found to be flawed and not substantial evidence due to failure to address cumulative trauma and job duties, leading to rescission of the prior order and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11934915 · 2022-03-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The sole question in ADJ11934915 asked is who was the employer of the injured workers on the date of injury 09/28/2018. Another included question referenced Labor Code § 2750.5. Defense counsel for AMPCO asks, separately from this issue, as to:

  The WCAB panel affirmed the WCJ's finding that AMPCO was the employer of the injured workers under Labor Code 2750.5, rejecting the adverse inference claims against CalMar and SCIF due to lack of evidence and failure to comply with subpoena issues.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8005491 · 2021-06-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. applicant, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Awards issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 2, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injuries in these cases caused new and further disability amounting to 95% of 3%, the liability for such increase apportioned between the two injuries. Previously, a WCJ had approved stipulations on January 22, 2014, that applicant, while employed by defendant, TJ Maxx, sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment as follows: to his low back, neck and psyche and consisting of a sleep disorder and constipation on January 1, 2003, resulting in permanent partial disability of 12% and need of further medical treatment (case ADJ8005454); to his lumbar and thoracic back, neck, shoulders, psyche and consisting of a sleep disorder and constipation during a cumulative period ending June 23, 2011, resulting in permanent partial disability of 25% and need of further medical treatment (case ADJ8005491); and to his lumbar and thoracic back, neck, shoulders, psyche and consisting of a sleep disorder and constipation resulting in permanent partial disability of 45% and need of further medical treatment (case ADJ8005495). Subsequently, applicant's petition to reopen for

  The parties agreed to resolve the claims by compromise and release, and the WCAB approved the settlement as adequate and in the best interest of the applicant, rescinding the prior Findings and Awards.

  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.

• NEWHOUSE & CREAGER
• NEWHOUSE AND CREAGER
• Newhouse and Creager
• NEWHOUSE CREAGER
• NEWHOUSE AND CREAGER, LLP
• NEWHOUSE CREAGER, LLP

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.