California WCABLaw firm

Silberman and Lam

Silberman and Lam is named in 16 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Apportionment (2), AOE/COE (1) and Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1). They were heard most often at Anaheim, then Fresno. The firm it meets most often is Guilford Sarvas & Carbonara (3).

Decisions: 16
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 7

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 12 of 15 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.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

Apportionment
222%
AOE/COE
111%
Discrimination under Labor Code §132a
111%
Jurisdiction / venue
111%
Medical treatment / UR / IMR
111%
Sanctions under Labor Code §5813
111%
Serious and willful misconduct
111%
Temporary disability
111%

9 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

4 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Anaheim 7
Fresno 2
Pomona 2
Santa Ana 2
Bakersfield 1
Los Angeles 1
Riverside 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.

11 for the defense
3 returned for more record
2 for the applicant

Counted over 15 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.

ADJ14680333 · 2026-05-29 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.12Based on the record before us, we discern no reason to disturb our prior Decision and will therefore deny defendant's Petition.
The Board found that the medical opinions on apportionment lacked substantial evidence because they failed to provide adequate medical reasoning connecting the impairment to other factors, thus denying defendant's petition for reconsideration on apportionment.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ14680333 · 2026-03-16 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11Here treating physician Jahng's apportionment is clearly conclusory and does not set forth the reasoning in support of its conclusions. Moreover, even the doctor seems to doubt his own conclusions as evidenced by the question marks at the end of his findings: "30% related to the industrial injury and 70% to non-industrial factors, including pre-existing degenerative changes and normal wear and tear.???" (Exhibit 1, Kenneth Jahng, M.D., October 23, 2023, p. 5.) Dr. Jahng's statements in his supplemental report that "[i]t appeared that his February 19, 2021 injury was an aggravating injury of a pre-existing condition thus 30% industrial apportionment was given" do not rehabilitate the conclusory nature of his opinions. (Exhibit A, Kenneth Jahng, M.D., November 25, 2024, p. 5.) It is clear Dr. Jahng's opinions are not substantial evidence of apportionment.
The medical opinions on apportionment were conclusory and lacked substantial evidence, so apportionment was not found and the permanent disability award was amended to 59% without apportionment.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ285288 · 2025-01-03 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, age 49, while employed on 2/29/2000, and during the period 4/15/1995 to 2/29/2000, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment as a soil technician in California with his general employer being GTG, Inc. dba Leighton & Associates, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was American Motorists Insurance, now identified as California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility, Tristar Risk Management, for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company in liquidation. 2. The applicant did not have dual or special employment with Koll Construction Company on February 29, 2000 nor during the period October 1999 to February 29, 2000.
The evidence showed Koll did not exercise control over applicant's work, applicant was paid and supervised by GTG, Inc., and Koll's role was limited to scheduling and oversight without direct control, thus no dual or special employment existed.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ9962889 · 2022-04-13 · Anaheim District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8As to the issue of whether defendant deviated from its procedures by seeking a medical report from a non-treating physician, the record reveals that defendant returned applicant to work based upon the treating physician's report in January 2016 and applicant worked full duty for approximately a year and a half. (Report, p. 2.) In early 2017, with applicant's claim in litigation, the parties jointly sought a supplemental report from Dr. Wieseltier as to the issue of permanent disability of the cervical spine. (Ex. X, Report of Dr. Wieseltier, April 6, 2017, p. 4.) Dr. Wieseltier prepared the requested report and opined that applicant was precluded from "prolonged or repetitive neck movements and heavy lifting," but did not opine as to whether applicant should be restricted from work. (Id., p. 7.) Thereafter, defendant's attorney requested that Dr. Wieseltier prepare a supplemental report on whether or not the preclusions set forth in his April 6, 2017 report should result in restrictions. (Ex. X, Report of Dr. Wieseltier, August 2, 2017, p. 3.)
The Board found that defendant deviated from its usual procedures by seeking a supplemental medical report from a non-treating physician and by imposing work restrictions without resolving conflicting medical reports, establishing a prima facie claim of discrimination under section 132a.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ9607300 · 2021-12-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.13We agree with defendant's contention that it is unclear what role Dr. Bone was playing in this matter when he prepared his 2020 reports at a time when was no longer evaluating applicant at defendant's request per section 4050 and before applicant purportedly designated him as her primary treating physician on August 3, 2020. (Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, December 31, 2020, p. 6.) Under these circumstances, we conclude that Dr. Bone's 2020 reporting may not be the sole evidentiary basis to support the award of temporary disability since he was not evaluating applicant as a treating physician, as a medical-legal evaluator or as a regular physician per section 5701. In the absence of Dr. Bone's 2020 reporting, there is insufficient medical evidence in the current record to determine if applicant is entitled to temporary disability during the period in dispute.
The Appeals Board found that Dr. Bone's 2020 reports could not be the sole basis for the award of temporary disability because he was not acting as a treating physician, medical-legal evaluator, or regular physician under section 5701 at that time, resulting in insufficient medical evidence to support the award. Therefore, the December 11, 2020 Findings and Award was rescinded and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 13 →
ADJ9079416 · 2021-05-18 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdeferred
Determinative passage · p.3FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, while employed at Fortune Management Corporation of Pomona, whose workers compensation insurance was Springfield Insurance Company administered by AmTrust North America, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on June 24, 2013 to his right ankle and on August 18, 2015 to his left elbow. 2. There is a need to develop the medical record as to whether the applicant now has new and further disability since his prior awards. 3. The applicant needs to be re-evaluated by the Agreed Medical Examiner who previously examined applicant for these injuries; Dr. Ray L. Craemer. 4. Defendant's petition for sanctions and penalties is deferred.
The Board found that the medical record needed further development by the AME Dr. Ray L. Craemer before deciding on new and further disability.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10833788 · 2026-04-27 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.445 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. In this matter, the January 21, 2026 Findings and Order makes no final orders, decisions, or awards. The issues set for trial on November 20, 2025 were (1) the Petition to Reopen for New and Further (Petition to Reopen) filed on March 9, 2022 and (2) whether there is a need for additional panels in the specialties of psychiatry, neurology, and internal medicine. The WCJ found that defendant did not prove the necessity of dismissing the Petition to Reopen or concluding that there was no proof of new and further disability at this time, and made a finding that applicant established a need for further discovery. These findings do not determine a substantive right or liability or a threshold issue. Rather, it is an interim, evidentiary decision that is not final.
The January 21, 2026 Findings and Orders were interlocutory and not final, thus reconsideration was inappropriate. Removal was denied as petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ18571103 · 2025-09-24 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on July 15, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14627934 · 2025-09-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2I. Former Labor Code section1 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was not acted upon within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909, as the case was transmitted on July 8, 2025, and the decision was issued on September 8, 2025, the 60th day.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ16001585 · 2025-06-05 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to an Order continuing the matter for trial issued by the trial workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 8, 2024. Applicant contends that the WCJ:
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the trial continuance order and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to the applicant.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ487398 · 2024-08-20 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In its December 18, 2023 decision, the Court distinguished the circumstances of Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493], and found that there was no equitable tolling because it was "CIGA's own inaction that denied it a remedy." (Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1213, 1239- 1240 [89 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The Court thus directed the Appeals Board to rescind its June 13, 2022 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration of the California Guarantee Insurance Association ("CIGA") and its August 8, 2022 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. (Id. at pp. 1240-1241.) The Court also directed the Board to order the dismissal of Zurich American Insurance Company as a defendant, based on the denial of CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909. (Ibid.)
The Court of Appeal directed the Appeals Board to rescind prior decisions and dismiss Zurich American Insurance Company as a defendant based on denial of CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ487398 · 2022-08-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.7Here, the WCA failed to electronically file a copy of the arbitration record with the Report. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10995(c)(3).) The Appeals Board has not received these documents despite repeated requests.9 As a result, the Appeals Board has no access to the arbitration file, and cannot review any of the exhibits filed by the parties; the minutes of the arbitration proceedings; any stipulations and issues entered into by the parties; the arbitrator's summary and description of exhibits admitted into evidence; the arbitrator's evidentiary rulings; the witnesses who testified with a summary of their testimony; verbatim transcripts of witness testimony; or even the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision at issue herein. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c).)
The Appeals Board could not conduct a meaningful review because the arbitrator failed to forward the arbitration record as required, depriving the Board of the ability to review the evidence and proceedings. Due process and regulatory requirements mandate remand for a new decision based on a complete record.
Official decision · page 7 →

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.

SILBERMAN & LAM
SILBERMAN & LAM, LLP
SILBERMAN LAM
Silberman and Lam
SILBERMAN AND LAM

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 →

Silberman and Lam

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

11 for the defense

3 returned for more record

2 for the applicant

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ14680333 · 2026-05-29 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.12Based on the record before us, we discern no reason to disturb our prior Decision and will therefore deny defendant's Petition.

The Board found that the medical opinions on apportionment lacked substantial evidence because they failed to provide adequate medical reasoning connecting the impairment to other factors, thus denying defendant's petition for reconsideration on apportionment.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ14680333 · 2026-03-16 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.11Here treating physician Jahng's apportionment is clearly conclusory and does not set forth the reasoning in support of its conclusions. Moreover, even the doctor seems to doubt his own conclusions as evidenced by the question marks at the end of his findings: "30% related to the industrial injury and 70% to non-industrial factors, including pre-existing degenerative changes and normal wear and tear.???" (Exhibit 1, Kenneth Jahng, M.D., October 23, 2023, p. 5.) Dr. Jahng's statements in his supplemental report that "[i]t appeared that his February 19, 2021 injury was an aggravating injury of a pre-existing condition thus 30% industrial apportionment was given" do not rehabilitate the conclusory nature of his opinions. (Exhibit A, Kenneth Jahng, M.D., November 25, 2024, p. 5.) It is clear Dr. Jahng's opinions are not substantial evidence of apportionment.

The medical opinions on apportionment were conclusory and lacked substantial evidence, so apportionment was not found and the permanent disability award was amended to 59% without apportionment.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ285288 · 2025-01-03 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.11JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, age 49, while employed on 2/29/2000, and during the period 4/15/1995 to 2/29/2000, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment as a soil technician in California with his general employer being GTG, Inc. dba Leighton & Associates, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was American Motorists Insurance, now identified as California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility, Tristar Risk Management, for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company in liquidation. 2. The applicant did not have dual or special employment with Koll Construction Company on February 29, 2000 nor during the period October 1999 to February 29, 2000.

The evidence showed Koll did not exercise control over applicant's work, applicant was paid and supervised by GTG, Inc., and Koll's role was limited to scheduling and oversight without direct control, thus no dual or special employment existed.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ9962889 · 2022-04-13 · Anaheim District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8As to the issue of whether defendant deviated from its procedures by seeking a medical report from a non-treating physician, the record reveals that defendant returned applicant to work based upon the treating physician's report in January 2016 and applicant worked full duty for approximately a year and a half. (Report, p. 2.) In early 2017, with applicant's claim in litigation, the parties jointly sought a supplemental report from Dr. Wieseltier as to the issue of permanent disability of the cervical spine. (Ex. X, Report of Dr. Wieseltier, April 6, 2017, p. 4.) Dr. Wieseltier prepared the requested report and opined that applicant was precluded from "prolonged or repetitive neck movements and heavy lifting," but did not opine as to whether applicant should be restricted from work. (Id., p. 7.) Thereafter, defendant's attorney requested that Dr. Wieseltier prepare a supplemental report on whether or not the preclusions set forth in his April 6, 2017 report should result in restrictions. (Ex. X, Report of Dr. Wieseltier, August 2, 2017, p. 3.)

The Board found that defendant deviated from its usual procedures by seeking a supplemental medical report from a non-treating physician and by imposing work restrictions without resolving conflicting medical reports, establishing a prima facie claim of discrimination under section 132a.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ9607300 · 2021-12-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.13We agree with defendant's contention that it is unclear what role Dr. Bone was playing in this matter when he prepared his 2020 reports at a time when was no longer evaluating applicant at defendant's request per section 4050 and before applicant purportedly designated him as her primary treating physician on August 3, 2020. (Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, December 31, 2020, p. 6.) Under these circumstances, we conclude that Dr. Bone's 2020 reporting may not be the sole evidentiary basis to support the award of temporary disability since he was not evaluating applicant as a treating physician, as a medical-legal evaluator or as a regular physician per section 5701. In the absence of Dr. Bone's 2020 reporting, there is insufficient medical evidence in the current record to determine if applicant is entitled to temporary disability during the period in dispute.

The Appeals Board found that Dr. Bone's 2020 reports could not be the sole basis for the award of temporary disability because he was not acting as a treating physician, medical-legal evaluator, or regular physician under section 5701 at that time, resulting in insufficient medical evidence to support the award. Therefore, the December 11, 2020 Findings and Award was rescinded and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 13 →

ADJ9079416 · 2021-05-18 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdeferred

Determinative passage · p.3FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, while employed at Fortune Management Corporation of Pomona, whose workers compensation insurance was Springfield Insurance Company administered by AmTrust North America, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on June 24, 2013 to his right ankle and on August 18, 2015 to his left elbow. 2. There is a need to develop the medical record as to whether the applicant now has new and further disability since his prior awards. 3. The applicant needs to be re-evaluated by the Agreed Medical Examiner who previously examined applicant for these injuries; Dr. Ray L. Craemer. 4. Defendant's petition for sanctions and penalties is deferred.

The Board found that the medical record needed further development by the AME Dr. Ray L. Craemer before deciding on new and further disability.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10833788 · 2026-04-27 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.445 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. In this matter, the January 21, 2026 Findings and Order makes no final orders, decisions, or awards. The issues set for trial on November 20, 2025 were (1) the Petition to Reopen for New and Further (Petition to Reopen) filed on March 9, 2022 and (2) whether there is a need for additional panels in the specialties of psychiatry, neurology, and internal medicine. The WCJ found that defendant did not prove the necessity of dismissing the Petition to Reopen or concluding that there was no proof of new and further disability at this time, and made a finding that applicant established a need for further discovery. These findings do not determine a substantive right or liability or a threshold issue. Rather, it is an interim, evidentiary decision that is not final.

The January 21, 2026 Findings and Orders were interlocutory and not final, thus reconsideration was inappropriate. Removal was denied as petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ18571103 · 2025-09-24 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on July 15, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14627934 · 2025-09-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2I. Former Labor Code section1 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was not acted upon within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909, as the case was transmitted on July 8, 2025, and the decision was issued on September 8, 2025, the 60th day.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ16001585 · 2025-06-05 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to an Order continuing the matter for trial issued by the trial workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 8, 2024. Applicant contends that the WCJ:

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the trial continuance order and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to the applicant.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ487398 · 2024-08-20 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In its December 18, 2023 decision, the Court distinguished the circumstances of Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493], and found that there was no equitable tolling because it was "CIGA's own inaction that denied it a remedy." (Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1213, 1239- 1240 [89 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The Court thus directed the Appeals Board to rescind its June 13, 2022 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration of the California Guarantee Insurance Association ("CIGA") and its August 8, 2022 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. (Id. at pp. 1240-1241.) The Court also directed the Board to order the dismissal of Zurich American Insurance Company as a defendant, based on the denial of CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal directed the Appeals Board to rescind prior decisions and dismiss Zurich American Insurance Company as a defendant based on denial of CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ487398 · 2022-08-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.7Here, the WCA failed to electronically file a copy of the arbitration record with the Report. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10995(c)(3).) The Appeals Board has not received these documents despite repeated requests.9 As a result, the Appeals Board has no access to the arbitration file, and cannot review any of the exhibits filed by the parties; the minutes of the arbitration proceedings; any stipulations and issues entered into by the parties; the arbitrator's summary and description of exhibits admitted into evidence; the arbitrator's evidentiary rulings; the witnesses who testified with a summary of their testimony; verbatim transcripts of witness testimony; or even the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision at issue herein. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c).)

The Appeals Board could not conduct a meaningful review because the arbitrator failed to forward the arbitration record as required, depriving the Board of the ability to review the evidence and proceedings. Due process and regulatory requirements mandate remand for a new decision based on a complete record.

Official decision · page 7 →