California WCABLaw firm

Russell Legal Group

Russell Legal Group is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1) and Statute of limitations (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Long Beach.

Decisions: 8
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 5

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Van Nuys 3
Long Beach 2
Marina del Rey 1
Pomona 1
Santa Ana 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.

4 for the applicant
3 returned for more record
1 for the defense

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ10388154 · 2026-02-19 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded
Determinative passage · p.11Here, the WCJ determined applicant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, ascribing a section 5412 date of injury of September 28, 2014, based upon an assumption that applicant gleaned the requisite disability and knowledge of his continuous trauma injury based upon the service of the AME Dr. Uppal's medical report of September 4, 2014 to his attorney, however, an applicant's knowledge cannot necessarily be presumed based solely upon written
The WCJ's finding of a September 28, 2014 date of injury under section 5412 was rejected because applicant lacked knowledge of the injury on that date; medical treatment was last provided on June 29, 2015, tolling the statute of limitations; thus, the claim was not barred and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ11408575 · 2025-12-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.17II. DISCUSSION ROLDA ANALYSIS The Applicant has filed a claim alleging continuous trauma injury to her psyche, and the defendant has raised the good faith personnel action defense per Labor Code 3208.3(h). Accordingly, the undersigned applied the multilevel analysis required by Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (en banc) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 241 as follows: (1) Whether the alleged psychiatric injury involves actual events of employment, a factual/legal determination. As per the report from QME Dr. Sean Sassano-Higgins dated August 2, 2023, the applicant sustained psychiatric injury which was apportioned 30% to the root cause analysis meeting on January 25, 2018, and 30% to "unfair termination". (Defense Exhibit M). In the opinion of the undersigned, the meeting and the applicant's termination were actual events of employment. (2) If so, whether such actual events were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury, a determination which requires medical evidence. In the opinion of the undersigned, the root cause analysis meeting and the applicant's termination were the predominant causes of the applicant's psychiatric injury, as per the report from QME Dr.
The WCJ and WCAB found that defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the personnel actions (January 25, 2018 meeting and July 2, 2018 termination) were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith, based on credible applicant testimony and medical evidence from QME Dr. Sean Sassano-Higgins.
Official decision · page 17 →
ADJ16681782 · 2024-02-20 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Therefore, defendant has not met its burden that its personnel actions were implemented in a manner that was lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith. The rules regarding the duration of the accommodation, the consideration of remote work, and evidence as to why some accommodations were granted are unclear and show that management personnel may not have followed proper procedures. (See City of Fresno v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (Romero), supra, 65 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1052.)
Defendant failed to prove that its personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith due to unclear rules and procedural errors, so the good faith personnel action defense does not bar the claim.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11408575 · 2024-02-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 30, 2023 Findings & Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant sustained injury in the form of stress, psyche, and nervous system while employed by defendant as a registered nurse during the period from January 16, 2018 through July 2, 2018; that defendant did not sustain its burden to establish that applicant's injury claim was barred by the good faith personnel action provision of Labor Code1 section 3208.3, subdivision (h); and that the opinion of the Court of Appeal is not res judicata/collateral estoppel.
The Appeals Board found the record unclear and deferred final decision pending further review of the merits and entire record, granting reconsideration to further examine whether the personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith and whether they were a substantial cause of the psychiatric injury.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15692843 · 2023-12-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.7Here, the record shows that Dr. Merman concluded that applicant requires home health care of four hours per day, five days per week, but his reporting does not explain how applicant's symptomology met criteria applicable for that determination. (Ex. AA, PTP PR-2 and RFA from Jan Merman, M.D., March 16, 2023, pp. 2-4; Ex. CC, PTP PR-2 and RFA from Jan Merman, M.D., April 17, 2023, pp. 27-29.)
The Board found that the WCJ's award of home health care was not supported by sufficient explanation of how the applicant's symptomatology met the criteria for home health care under the MTUS, and the type and duration of services were not specified, warranting further development of the record.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ9078233 · 2023-10-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9The exclusion had to be clearly stated not merely open to interpretation. This is especially true in light of the fact the employer was a football team that played one-half of its games out-of-state. The Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation relies on the out-of-state provision which is stated above is unclear as to its intent. If the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation intended an exclusion for extraterritorial injuries, they should have set forth that exclusion in clear and unambiguous language. There is no language or endorsement contained in the insurance policy issued by the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation of an express limitation of extraterritorial injuries and jurisdiction. There is no express exclusion in the insurance policy for injuries in another state and filed in another state and not defending or paying benefits based on an award issued by another state having jurisdiction. In the opinion of the Arbitrator, in the absence of such express language excluding such injuries and fillings in another state and in light of the know business of the insured, the fact that the Shreveport Pirates played approximately one-half their games out-of-state, it is found by the Arbitrator that the insurance policy issued by the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation to the Shreveport Pirates covers applicant's claim in California.
The arbitrator and Appeals Board found the insurance policy lacked clear and unambiguous exclusions for out-of-state injuries, thus coverage extended to injuries sustained out-of-state by the applicant.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ446685 · 2022-05-31 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On February 3, 2012 and September 20, 2013, we issued Orders Denying applicant's Petitions for Reconsideration filed on December 8, 2011 and July 31, 2013, respectively. Applicant subsequently filed this Petition for Reconsideration on April 1, 2022. Based on our review of the Petition and the record in this matter, we will dismiss the Petition to the extent it is successive to the December 8, 2011 and July 31, 2013 Petitions for Reconsideration and dismiss it as untimely to the extent it makes any new allegation.
The petition was dismissed because it was successive to prior petitions and untimely under the statutory 25-day filing period, which is jurisdictional and strictly enforced.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ593255 · 2021-09-03 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks removal of the June 8, 2021 Joint Order Suspending Action on Compromise and Release, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) declined to approve the proposed Compromise and Release in this case, and set the matter for a further hearing. Applicant contends the WCJ erred in failing to approve the Compromise & Release, and that time is of the essence due to the need to secure ongoing care, which is currently being provided voluntarily by the defendant pending approval of the settlement.
Applicant demonstrated that time is of the essence and irreparable harm may result if approval of the settlement is delayed, justifying removal of the order suspending approval of the Compromise and Release.
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.

RUSSELL LEGAL GROUP
Russell Legal Group
Russell Legal
RUSSELL LEGAL

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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Russell Legal Group

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

3 returned for more record

1 for the defense

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ10388154 · 2026-02-19 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

Determinative passage · p.11Here, the WCJ determined applicant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, ascribing a section 5412 date of injury of September 28, 2014, based upon an assumption that applicant gleaned the requisite disability and knowledge of his continuous trauma injury based upon the service of the AME Dr. Uppal's medical report of September 4, 2014 to his attorney, however, an applicant's knowledge cannot necessarily be presumed based solely upon written

The WCJ's finding of a September 28, 2014 date of injury under section 5412 was rejected because applicant lacked knowledge of the injury on that date; medical treatment was last provided on June 29, 2015, tolling the statute of limitations; thus, the claim was not barred and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ11408575 · 2025-12-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.17II. DISCUSSION ROLDA ANALYSIS The Applicant has filed a claim alleging continuous trauma injury to her psyche, and the defendant has raised the good faith personnel action defense per Labor Code 3208.3(h). Accordingly, the undersigned applied the multilevel analysis required by Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (en banc) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 241 as follows: (1) Whether the alleged psychiatric injury involves actual events of employment, a factual/legal determination. As per the report from QME Dr. Sean Sassano-Higgins dated August 2, 2023, the applicant sustained psychiatric injury which was apportioned 30% to the root cause analysis meeting on January 25, 2018, and 30% to "unfair termination". (Defense Exhibit M). In the opinion of the undersigned, the meeting and the applicant's termination were actual events of employment. (2) If so, whether such actual events were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury, a determination which requires medical evidence. In the opinion of the undersigned, the root cause analysis meeting and the applicant's termination were the predominant causes of the applicant's psychiatric injury, as per the report from QME Dr.

The WCJ and WCAB found that defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the personnel actions (January 25, 2018 meeting and July 2, 2018 termination) were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith, based on credible applicant testimony and medical evidence from QME Dr. Sean Sassano-Higgins.

Official decision · page 17 →

ADJ16681782 · 2024-02-20 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Therefore, defendant has not met its burden that its personnel actions were implemented in a manner that was lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith. The rules regarding the duration of the accommodation, the consideration of remote work, and evidence as to why some accommodations were granted are unclear and show that management personnel may not have followed proper procedures. (See City of Fresno v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (Romero), supra, 65 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1052.)

Defendant failed to prove that its personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith due to unclear rules and procedural errors, so the good faith personnel action defense does not bar the claim.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11408575 · 2024-02-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 30, 2023 Findings & Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant sustained injury in the form of stress, psyche, and nervous system while employed by defendant as a registered nurse during the period from January 16, 2018 through July 2, 2018; that defendant did not sustain its burden to establish that applicant's injury claim was barred by the good faith personnel action provision of Labor Code1 section 3208.3, subdivision (h); and that the opinion of the Court of Appeal is not res judicata/collateral estoppel.

The Appeals Board found the record unclear and deferred final decision pending further review of the merits and entire record, granting reconsideration to further examine whether the personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith and whether they were a substantial cause of the psychiatric injury.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15692843 · 2023-12-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

Determinative passage · p.7Here, the record shows that Dr. Merman concluded that applicant requires home health care of four hours per day, five days per week, but his reporting does not explain how applicant's symptomology met criteria applicable for that determination. (Ex. AA, PTP PR-2 and RFA from Jan Merman, M.D., March 16, 2023, pp. 2-4; Ex. CC, PTP PR-2 and RFA from Jan Merman, M.D., April 17, 2023, pp. 27-29.)

The Board found that the WCJ's award of home health care was not supported by sufficient explanation of how the applicant's symptomatology met the criteria for home health care under the MTUS, and the type and duration of services were not specified, warranting further development of the record.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ9078233 · 2023-10-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9The exclusion had to be clearly stated not merely open to interpretation. This is especially true in light of the fact the employer was a football team that played one-half of its games out-of-state. The Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation relies on the out-of-state provision which is stated above is unclear as to its intent. If the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation intended an exclusion for extraterritorial injuries, they should have set forth that exclusion in clear and unambiguous language. There is no language or endorsement contained in the insurance policy issued by the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation of an express limitation of extraterritorial injuries and jurisdiction. There is no express exclusion in the insurance policy for injuries in another state and filed in another state and not defending or paying benefits based on an award issued by another state having jurisdiction. In the opinion of the Arbitrator, in the absence of such express language excluding such injuries and fillings in another state and in light of the know business of the insured, the fact that the Shreveport Pirates played approximately one-half their games out-of-state, it is found by the Arbitrator that the insurance policy issued by the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation to the Shreveport Pirates covers applicant's claim in California.

The arbitrator and Appeals Board found the insurance policy lacked clear and unambiguous exclusions for out-of-state injuries, thus coverage extended to injuries sustained out-of-state by the applicant.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ446685 · 2022-05-31 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On February 3, 2012 and September 20, 2013, we issued Orders Denying applicant's Petitions for Reconsideration filed on December 8, 2011 and July 31, 2013, respectively. Applicant subsequently filed this Petition for Reconsideration on April 1, 2022. Based on our review of the Petition and the record in this matter, we will dismiss the Petition to the extent it is successive to the December 8, 2011 and July 31, 2013 Petitions for Reconsideration and dismiss it as untimely to the extent it makes any new allegation.

The petition was dismissed because it was successive to prior petitions and untimely under the statutory 25-day filing period, which is jurisdictional and strictly enforced.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ593255 · 2021-09-03 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks removal of the June 8, 2021 Joint Order Suspending Action on Compromise and Release, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) declined to approve the proposed Compromise and Release in this case, and set the matter for a further hearing. Applicant contends the WCJ erred in failing to approve the Compromise & Release, and that time is of the essence due to the need to secure ongoing care, which is currently being provided voluntarily by the defendant pending approval of the settlement.

Applicant demonstrated that time is of the essence and irreparable harm may result if approval of the settlement is delayed, justifying removal of the order suspending approval of the Compromise and Release.

Official decision · page 1 →