Rose, Klein & Marias

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 13
• Oxnard 5
• Anaheim 4
• Los Angeles 2
• Marina del Rey 2
• Riverside 2
• San Bernardino 2
• San Diego 2
• Santa Barbara 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Long Beach 1
• Pomona 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.

• 15 for the defense
• 12 for the applicant
• 12 returned for more record

Counted over 37 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.

• ADJ19102087 · 2026-08-25 · Anaheim District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3This matter involves a claim for death benefits by the widow of an injured worker who sustained a sudden cardiac arrest and died on November 10, 2023 while at the place and during the period of his employment. (F&O, Opinion on Decision, p. 1.) While the QME in this case states that stress from decedent’s employment contributed to the cause of his sudden cardiac arrest and death, there is no claim for psychiatric injury. (See Applications for Adjudication of Claim- Death, April 8, 2024 and April 29, 2024.) “Stress is not a diagnosis, disease, or syndrome. It is a nonspecific set of emotions or physical symptoms that may or may not be associated with a disease or syndrome. Whether or not stress contributes to a disease or syndrome depends on the vulnerability of the individual, the intensity, duration, and meaning of the stress; and the nature and availability of modifying resources.” (American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition at p. 1055.) However, stress may cause a physical injury or a psychiatric injury or both.

  The WCJ and Board found substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Fischer that stress from decedent’s employment contributed to his sudden cardiac arrest and death, meeting the standard that employment need only be a contributing cause of death for compensability under Labor Code and case law. Defendant’s challenges to the medical evidence and applicant’s credibility were rejected.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9507100 · 2026-07-20 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6If the medical evidence establishes that the sole industrial cause of the COPD is asbestos exposure, then the injury would appear to be a compensable consequence of applicant’s settled claim, and thus, likely precluded. If the medical evidence establishes that applicant’s COPD is a separate injury caused, even in part, through other industrial exposures, then it does not fall within the prior C&R as that C&R was limited solely to the case number listed on the document. As no such medical evidence was produced at trial, there is not sufficient information to determine whether the prior C&R covers applicant’s claimed injury herein. Accordingly, we grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration and as our Decision After Reconsideration we rescind the April 14, 2026 F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued on April 14, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge is GRANTED.

  The WCAB found that the prior Compromise and Release (C&R) did not clearly cover the COPD injury, and no medical evidence was produced to establish whether the COPD was a compensable consequence of the settled claim or a separate injury. Therefore, res judicata did not bar the claim and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ2235268 · 2026-07-13 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of the “Findings and Award” (F&A) issued on March 9, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained an industrial cumulative injury through the period ending on November 8, 1993, to his lower back, bilateral knees, and psyche. The WCJ found applicant’s internal injury in the form of internal non-industrial. The WCJ further found that applicant was entitled to temporary disability for the period of May 25, 2010 to present. The WCJ found that applicant’s injury caused permanent partial disability of 94.50%, without apportionment and awarded permanent disability accordingly. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because injury in the form of internal and in the form of incontinence were caused by his industrial injury and that the reporting of applicant’s vocational expert establishes permanent total disability. Defendant contends that liability for payment of temporary disability benefits should have ceased when applicant was declared permanent and stationary in 2011. Defendant also argues that the apportionment opinions of the agreed medical evaluators (AMEs) constitute substantial medical evidence and should have been followed.

  The WCJ's original findings on permanent disability and apportionment were rescinded due to insufficient explanation and failure to comply with legal standards. The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not meet its burden to prove apportionment and that the vocational expert's opinion on permanent total disability was supported, but the matter was returned for further proceedings to develop a complete record and opinion.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18656111 · 2026-06-26 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on March 3, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that defendant did not prove that decedent's death was proximately caused by intoxication. Defendant asserts that the WCJ erred because the evidence supports the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner ("QME") that intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury.

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that decedent's intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury, due to lack of concrete evidence and reliance on speculative assumptions in the QME report.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16929084 · 2025-12-22 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ found that applicant was not an employee because he was not receiving wages irrespective of profits.2 The parties fail to acknowledge that the section goes on to specifically address general partners, without limiting language, that have not elected to be excluded from coverage.3 Whether applicant was a working member of a partnership or a general partner, he would be automatically covered by the division regardless. Section 3352 (a)(17)(A) specifically provides that general partners may be excluded from the definition of employee, and thereby excluded from coverage, only when they execute "a written waiver of his or her rights under this chapter stating under penalty of perjury that the person is a qualifying general partner." (Lab. Code, § 3352(a)(17))4 Neither party appears to dispute that applicant is a general partner that remained a practicing attorney, thereby meeting the definition of employee either under the general definition or the explicit inclusion of subsection f of Section 3351. Thus, this issue is not an employment issue, but a coverage issue.

  The WCJ found applicant was not an employee under section 3351(f) because he did not receive wages irrespective of profits, but the Appeals Board found that as a general partner who did not waive coverage, he is covered by the division. The matter involves insurance coverage and must be submitted to arbitration before further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17834281 · 2025-11-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The undersigned issued a Finding & Order (F&O) in which it was found that Applicant's injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment because it fell within the "going and coming" rule. applicant (Petitioner) timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration. Petitioner contends that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact and that the findings of fact do not support the order. The undersigned recommends that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied.

  The injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment because it was barred by the going and coming rule, with no applicable exceptions met by the applicant.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ7835304 · 2025-10-17 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The issue presented on reconsideration is whether applicant may be paid compensation for a psychiatric injury in this matter pursuant to section 3208.3(d), which provides in relevant part:

  The Board corrected the WCJ's erroneous finding that applicant did not sustain a psychiatric injury AOE/COE but affirmed that applicant was not employed for at least six months and the injury was not caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition, thus no compensation under section 3208.3(d).

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11202213 · 2025-05-09 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The conclusions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Wood with respect to causation of injury do not constitute substantial medical evidence without further explanation. The medical evaluators do not question applicant's reports of stress and repetitive use of the upper extremities at work, yet they fail to persuasively explain how and why these factors played no role in applicant's injuries to the circulatory system and upper extremities. As explained by the California Supreme Court, industrial factors need only be a contributing cause of injury, however slight. (See South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 299 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489].)

  The medical evaluators' opinions on causation lacked sufficient explanation and reasoning to constitute substantial medical evidence, particularly regarding the role of work-related stress and repetitive use in the injuries. The Board found the need for further development of the record to obtain substantial evidence on causation.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14362966 · 2025-02-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the November 12, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an Energy Technician from November 1, 2020 to November 29, 2020, sustained industrial injury in the form of COVID-19.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's original decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the QME's medical opinion was limited to a single service call and did not address the totality of the evidence; the record was incomplete and required further development to determine industrial causation of COVID-19.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1993155 · 2024-12-09 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In verified pleadings, applicant stated - in essence - that she did not receive the notice of intent to dismiss the cases, which raises procedural due process concerns as to whether the required notice was received by applicant. It is one of the basic tenets of jurisprudence that a party must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before their case is dismissed. (See, e.g., San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].) Thus, the failure to serve applicant with the notice of intent is not only a violation of WCAB Rules; it constitutes a fundamental violation of applicant's due process rights, rendering the resulting July 30, 2019, Order dismissing cases ADJ1993155 and ADJ984342 void on its face.

  The WCAB found the dismissal orders void ab initio due to lack of proper service and due process violations, thus it has jurisdiction to reopen the cases.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10192708 · 2024-12-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here it is unclear from our preliminary review of the existing record as to whether there was a stipulation to the maximum temporary disability indemnity rate by the parties, particularly as it pertains to the payment of indemnity pursuant to section 4661.5. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petitions, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

  The WCAB found it unclear whether there was a stipulation to the maximum temporary disability indemnity rate and granted reconsideration to further study the issue.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14201376 · 2023-12-18 · Oxnard District OfficeTemporary disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.2We are not persuaded that the record supports the allowance of a credit for overpayment of TD. The WCJ relies on the December 15, 2020 pain management panel qualified medical examination report of Lawrence Miller, M.D., to allow the credit. Dr. Miller found applicant to have reached maximum medical improvement. (Dr. Miller's 12/15/20 report, at p. 13, defendant's Exhibit D.) However, the signature page of Dr. Miller's December 15, 2020 report is undated, the attached proof of service is undated and unsigned, and what appears to be a facsimile stamp at the bottom of each page of the report states "12/31/2020 12:00:00 AM." Thus, there does not appear to be evidence that the report was transmitted prior to December 31, 2020. In addition, EDD began to pay benefits on January 8, 2021 (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE) 8/16/23, at p 3:9-11), presumably based on the certification of her treating physician.

  The issue of credit for overpayment of temporary disability was deferred for further development of the record due to questions about the timeliness of the Panel QME report and communications with EDD.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS
• ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS LLP
• ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS
• LAW OFFICES OF ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS
• ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS, LLP
• ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS LLP
• Rose, Klein & Marias
• Herbert I. Galperson, Esq., Rose, Klein & Marias LLP
• LAW OFFICES OF ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS, LLP
• ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS, LLP
• Rose Klein & Marias
• ROSE KLEIN

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.