Perez Law, PC

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Pomona 14
• Anaheim 5
• San Bernardino 3
• Riverside 2
• Goleta 1
• San Francisco 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.

• 13 for the applicant
• 10 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 23 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.

• ADJ19640948 · 2026-05-19 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.71. Parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is "one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant...." (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, "the commission...must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, -- in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law." (Id. at p. 577.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584].) Indeed: Although the California Constitution states that a goal of workers' compensation proceedings is to "accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character...." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4), the right to due process is paramount to the goal of conducting workers' compensation proceedings expeditiously. We therefore conclude that denial of a fair trial to a [party] is reversible per se.

  Applicant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine PQME Dr. Schmitz on a significant supplemental report, which denied her a fair trial and due process, warranting reconsideration and further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15972441 · 2026-04-06 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Next, applicant argues that the June 2, 2025 report by PTP Dr. Hannani "contained new and significant medical findings" requiring that defendant conduct a new UR despite the May 20, 2025 UR denial of the same surgery recommended in Dr. Hannani's May 9, 2025 report. However, based on a line-by-line comparison of Dr. Hannani's May 9, 2025 and June 2, 2025 reports, it is noted that the reports are identical except for 4 paragraphs at the bottom of page 3 of the June 2, 2025 report. In other words, the sections of the reports under the headings of Subjective Complaints, Objective Complaints, Motor Examination, Sensation, Reflexes, Lower Extremities Examination, Bilateral Hips, Vascular Examination, Diagnosis, Prescriptions Given and Disability Status are word for word the same.

  The June 2, 2025 report by PTP Dr. Hannani did not identify any material change in the applicant's medical condition subsequent to the May 20, 2025 utilization review denial. The reports were nearly identical except for clarifying paragraphs that did not constitute new evidence. Applicant's testimony of worsening symptoms did not specify a material change after the May 20, 2025 denial. Therefore, no new utilization review was required and the June 5, 2025 deferral was reasonable.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ10988642 · 2026-03-19 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Both applicant and defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order (Amended) ("F&O") issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 30, 2025, wherein the WCJ found applicant did not sustain a work-related cumulative trauma psyche injury, found that applicant's left knee injury was industrial in nature, and ordered further development of the record with regard to all other claimed body parts. Applicant asserted that the WCJ erred in finding no cumulative psyche injury based an adverse finding in a prior specific psyche injury claim. Defendant, by contrast, asserted that the WCJ erred because (1) the medical evidence shows the left knee injury was non-industrial; and (2) as to the other body parts, the medical evidence either does not require further development, or applicant failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing medical discovery.

  The WCAB found that the medical reporting of Dr. Hannani is substantial evidence that the left knee injury is non-industrial and reversed the WCJ's finding that it was industrial.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18164316 · 2026-03-09 · Riverside District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 15, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed as a correctional deputy trainee, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right shoulder and big toes; that her injury caused temporary disability for which she has been adequately compensated; that her injury caused 0% permanent disability, entitling applicant to zero weeks of disability; that her permanent and stationary date is August 20, 2024; and, that she will require further medical treatment.

  The WCJ's finding of 0% permanent disability was challenged due to lack of substantial evidence and procedural due process violations related to discovery closure before Dr. Hardy's deposition. The Appeals Board found that the matter required further development, including admission of Dr. Hardy's deposition transcript, to ensure due process and substantial justice.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18997271 · 2026-01-12 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7disability; 2. Need for further medical treatment; and 3. Attorney fees. (Amended Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), August 25, 2025 trial, p. 2.) The parties stipulated that during the period of January 1, 2023 through February 23, 2024, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head and in the form of COVID-19.

  The Appeals Board found the medical evidence insufficient and not substantial to deny permanent disability; the matter was returned for further development and proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ18038876 · 2025-12-16 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Dr. Peterson also noted that applicant has weakness in the shoulder as a ratable factor, quoting the AMA Guides, 16.8a (Page 508), which notes that an evaluator may rate loss of strength if strength represents an impairing factor that has not been considered adequately by other methods in the Guides. Dr. Peterson opined that applicant's strength loss should be rated. He felt that applicant gave a maximal effort and that pain did not prevent him from giving maximal effort. Dr. Peterson opined that the rating should be combined with the range of motion impairment and relied upon the Guides (Page 508) which indicates that loss of strength and other impairments may be combined if they are based on unrelated etiological or pathomechanical causes.

  The Board found the PQME's rating of strength loss combined with range of motion impairment persuasive and rejected the outside rater's reduction of strength loss rating as outside the rater's role and unsupported by substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10961264 · 2025-11-07 · Anaheim District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, applicant's petition to strike Dr. Patchett's reporting did not raise the issue of section 4628 compliance, nor was section 4628 listed as a trial issue in the June 18, 2024 pretrial conference statement. (Petition to Strike, served May 15, 2024; Pre-trial Conference Statement, filed June 18, 2024.) Although the September 14, 2024 minutes of hearing indicate that one of the issues for trial was "Applicant's petition to strike the medical reports of Dr. Ross and Dr. Patchett," the minutes did not state, specifically, that the WCJ would be make that determination pursuant to section 4628. (Corrected Minutes of Hearing, served September 19, 2024; see also, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(c)(3) [MOH must include "the issues and matters in controversy"].) Compliance with section 4628 was raised, for the first time, in the Opinion on Decision issued on December 2, 2024. (Opinion, at pp. 4-6.) Thus, there was no notice to any party that section 4628 would be considered by the WCJ or that it would be relied upon by the WCJ as the basis for finding Dr. Patchett's reporting inadmissible. Dr. Patchett, specifically, was not provided with notice that his reporting could be stricken pursuant to section 4628, and as a result, had no opportunity to be heard on that issue before the order striking his reporting issued.

  The WCJ struck Dr. Patchett's report for noncompliance with section 4628 without providing notice or opportunity to cure; Board found this violated due process and rescinded the order, remanding for proper notice and opportunity to cure.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16367723 · 2025-10-20 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of August 1, 2025, wherein it was found that "applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her circulatory system, nervous system, head, or brain as a result of an alleged February 18, 2022 specific injury or an alleged cumulative trauma injury from November 1, 2005 through February 15, 2022." It appears that the above claimed body parts encompass those involved in a February 18, 2022 stroke. The parties had stipulated that applicant claimed a specific February 18, 2022 injury to her "circulatory system, nervous system, respiratory system, head, brain, chemical exposure, right fingers, right hand, right arm, excretory system, right leg, right ankle, right foot, and right toes while working as a Press Operator/Assembler for TrafFix Devices, Inc.

  The WCJ found no industrial injury in the form of stroke, but the Appeals Board deferred this issue for further development of the record to avoid piecemeal findings and to have a single final decision on all body parts and legal defenses.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19947925 · 2025-05-19 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March 12, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant is not entitled to a new primary treating physician (PTP) as both the original PTP, Robert Innocenzi, D.O, in a report dated October 15, 2015, and panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME), Armin Visteh, M.D., in a report dated July 20, 2023, found that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) with no need for future medical care.

  Applicant contends entitlement to change PTP or seek second opinion within MPN; original PTP and PQME found MMI with no further treatment needed; reconsideration granted to further study legal and factual issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10531850 · 2025-03-17 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant born on ________, while allegedly employed on July 19, 2016 as a drywall installer, occupational group number 380, at 25771 Serenate Drive, Mission Viejo, California, by TIM CAGLE aka TIMOTHY HOWARD CAGLE, individually dba TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, and GREG AND BROOKE BAIRD, homeowners, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to the neck, arm, hand, knee and various body parts. 2. Applicant was employed by TIM CAGLE, individually dba TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, on the claimed date of injury. It is concluded the unrebutted evidence is that at the time of the claimed injury TIM CAGLE, individually dba TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, was uninsured. 3. The parties were denied an opportunity to cross-examine TIM CAGLE, and Exhibit "G" (letter from Tim Cagle dated June 6, 2016) is struck from evidence. 4. The homeowners, GREGORY and BROOKE BAIRD, are applicant's ultimate hirer for purposes of imposing workers' compensation liability. 5. The issue of whether applicant is excluded from being deemed an employee of the homeowners GREGORY and BROOKE BAIRD pursuant to Labor Code Section 3352(h) is deferred.

  The homeowners, the Bairds, are found to be the applicant's ultimate hirer for workers' compensation liability because the employer Cagle was unlicensed and uninsured, making the homeowners liable under Labor Code Section 2750.5.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ11739682 · 2024-10-28 · Anaheim District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the February 28, 2022 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a landscaper on November 6, 2018, sustained industrial injury to his chest, back, left elbow, left wrist, left shoulder, and neck. The WCJ found that there was no negligence on the part of the employer and granted defendant credit in the net amount of applicant's recovery from a civil lawsuit arising out of the industrial injury.

  The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial evidence of employer negligence, concluding the accident was not foreseeable or preventable by the employer, thus defendant was entitled to full credit for the third party recovery.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14083898 · 2024-04-02 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The court issued a Findings & Award/Opinion on Decision on January 14, 2024, which was served January 18, 2024. It was found that Defendant had to comply with their own UR authorization.

  A timely Utilization Review approved the requested home relocation, and the court has no jurisdiction to disturb a timely UR approval. Defendant cannot disavow its own UR approval and must comply with it.

  Official decision · page 4 →

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.

• PEREZ LAW
• PEREZ LAW, PC
• PEREZ LAW, APC
• Perez Law, PC
• PEREZ LAW, P.C.
• PEREZ LAW FIRM
• Perez Law

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.