California WCABLaw firm
Rossi Law Group
Rossi Law Group is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Marina del Rey, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Graiwer & Kaplan (1).
- Decisions
- 10
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 2
- District offices
- 5
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 of 5 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
5 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 10 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.
- ADJ14972494 · 2026-06-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the February 3, 2026 Findings of Fact, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant as a chief negotiator for the nurses' union, from February 4, 2005 to July 13, 2021, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her "internal" and eyes/vision, and claimed injury to various parts.
The WCJ's finding of industrial injury to the eyes/vision is supported by substantial medical evidence including the ophthalmology QME Dr. Sami's opinion, the internal medicine AME Dr. Grodan's deferral to Dr. Sami, credible applicant testimony, and contemporaneous treating records. The Report on Reconsideration supplies the reasoning required under Labor Code section 5313, curing any deficiency in the original Opinion on Decision.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ9313967 · 2023-03-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.2Turning to the merits of applicant's contentions, we agree that defendant's actual LTD benefits policy, not just the "disability program overview" dated July 21, 2010 (defense exhibit B), must be admitted into evidence and considered by the WCJ in issuing a new decision. Therefore, we will rescind the WCJ's decision and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings as directed in this opinion, and for a new decision by the WCJ.
The WCJ's decision was rescinded because the full and complete LTD policy was not admitted into evidence and considered, which was necessary to determine the credit for LTD payments properly.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ11562135 · 2021-11-19 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this case, we agree with the WCJ that applicant did not meet his burden of proof.
Applicant failed to prove employment and injury arising out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of the evidence, as found by the WCJ and affirmed by the panel.
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ14935109 · 2024-11-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550.) WCAB Rule 10625(d), requires that "where a party receives notification that the service to one or more parties failed, the server shall re-serve the document on all intended recipients and execute a new proof of service, or provide a courtesy copy to the recipient on whom service failed, within a reasonable amount of time." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(d).) WCAB Rule 10832 requires, in pertinent part, that (a) The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including dismissing an application; and (b) that a Notice of Intention may be served by designated service in accordance with rule 10629. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.) Due process requires that a party be provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
The dismissal order was rescinded due to defendant's failure to properly serve notices and petitions, violating due process and WCAB rules, and premature issuance of the dismissal order.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ10578909 · 2024-08-22 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In his Report, the WCJ acknowledges that defendant was not properly served with the
The Board found that the defendant was not properly served with the notice of intention to change venue, violating due process, and that the WCJ has broad jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues, including venue changes. The Board rescinded the venue change order and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ11532265 · 2022-09-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on July 18, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ15017008 · 2022-09-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Because no hearing was held, the WCJ did not have the opportunity to assess the basis of the parties' understanding of the C&R. There is no Minutes of Hearing/Statement of Evidence in the record. Therefore, we cannot make a decision without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard and for the WCJ to create a complete record for our review.
The Board found the petition premature because no hearing was held and no complete record was created for review, thus the parties were not given an opportunity to be heard.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ11562135 · 2021-06-07 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued Supplementary Minutes of Hearing, Summary of Evidence and Notice of Submission for Decision (NIT) on July 9, 2020 stating "The above-captioned case will be submitted for decision as of July 31, 2020." On July 30, 2020, one day prior to the submission of this matter, applicant filed a Petition for Removal requesting that the intention to submit the case be withdrawn and that he be allowed to conduct further discovery. The matter was subsequently submitted on July 31, 2020. The notice of intention to submit a matter for decision is not a final or non-final order subject to either reconsideration or removal. Accordingly, we find that applicant was not aggrieved.
The notice of intention to submit the case for decision is not a final or non-final order subject to reconsideration or removal; applicant was not aggrieved by it; removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not shown; reconsideration is an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12807977 · 2021-02-24 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
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.
- ROSSI LAW GROUP
- Rossi Law Group
- Rossi Law
- ROSSI LAW GROUP, APC
- ROSSI 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.
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.