California WCABLaw firm

Tina Odjaghian Law Group

Tina Odjaghian Law Group is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (6) and QME/AME process (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Fresno. The firm it meets most often is CW Law (3).

Decisions: 13
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 6

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 11 of 12 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.

Who they face

5 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

Van Nuys 8
Fresno 1
Long Beach 1
Marina del Rey 1
Oxnard 1
San Bernardino 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.

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

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ11532204 · 2025-01-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11In summary, we agree with the WCJ that defendant has not met its affirmative burden of establishing a material change in applicant's medical treatment or circumstance that would otherwise require defendant to either authorize the requested treatment or submit the request to UR. Because there was no valid medical dispute arising out of a change in condition or circumstance, we concur with the WCJ's determination that defendant is obligated to continue to provide treatment in the form of home health care services, unless and until defendant demonstrates a material change in applicant's condition or circumstance.
The WCJ and WCAB found no persuasive evidence of a material change in applicant's condition to justify termination of ongoing home health care. The treating physician's consistent recommendations and UR certifications supported ongoing medical necessity.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ14943245 · 2024-05-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.93. Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Appeals Board significant panel decision) is applicable to the issue of whether applicant is entitled to continued outpatient rehabilitation treatment at Centre for Neuro Skills (CNS).
The WCAB found Patterson applicable and that defendant failed to prove a change in applicant's condition warranting discontinuation of treatment, entitling applicant to continued outpatient treatment at CNS.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ11449146 · 2023-11-27 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5.... Applicant did not sustain his burden of proof in proving medical necessity of the disputed treatment
Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof by substantial medical evidence to show the medical necessity of the treatment requested in the October 28, 2021 RFA. The evidence was largely boilerplate, non-responsive, and did not incorporate relevant medical reports. Defendant's evidence was more thorough and cured prior defects, outweighing Applicant's evidence.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ11726227 · 2023-09-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.25For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued on June 27, 2023 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration, that the Findings of Fact and Order issued on June 27, 2023 is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:
Defendant failed to meet its burden to show a change in applicant's condition or circumstances to justify discontinuing previously authorized home health care services, supported by substantial medical evidence from Drs. Huang and Franc.
Official decision · page 25 →
ADJ10266237 · 2023-05-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The parties subsequently reached an accord to utilize Roger Bertoldi, M.D. as an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) in neurology. AME Dr. Bertoldi evaluated applicant and issued a report dated January 20, 2020.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the participation of applicant's sister in the AME evaluation was necessary and permissible because the applicant's ability to communicate was compromised, and the sister was effectively transmitting information on applicant's behalf, consistent with precedent in Belling and Trujillo.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11438423 · 2022-06-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and lien claimant Casa Colina seek reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 25, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a teacher on July 30, 2018, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his brain and head; (2) applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that Patterson v. The Oaks Farms, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910, applies to this matter; and (3) applicant's treatment requests must be in the form of requests for authorization (RFAs), which are subject to utilization review (UR) determinations and appealable only through independent medical review (IMR).
The Board found that the applicant's RFAs sought continued inpatient treatment previously authorized and thus are not subject to UR without substantial medical evidence of a change in condition; the Board rescinded the WCJ's prior order and substituted findings in favor of the applicant for continued treatment until a change is established and a care plan agreed upon.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12727724 · 2026-01-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2On January 15, 2026, applicant filed a petition seeking to withdraw her pending Petition for Reconsideration.
Applicant withdrew the Petition for Reconsideration, leading to dismissal and vacatur of the prior order granting reconsideration.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12989988 · 2025-08-22 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached
Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition as premature and return this matter to the trial level. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside and set a hearing so lien claimant can provide evidence in support of the arguments contained in the Petition and create a record upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ.
The petition for reconsideration was premature and should be treated as a petition to set aside the OACR; the WCAB acted within the 60-day period and provided proper notice of transmission.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ18067229 · 2025-07-10 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the additional reasons given below, we will deny reconsideration.
The WCAB panel found that the defendant did not meet the burden of proof to show a change in applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify discontinuing ongoing home health care, and thus denied the petition for reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12727724 · 2024-07-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 7, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a delivery driver on August 19, 2019, sustained industrial injury to her head, neck, left hand, left elbow, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, both shoulders, and left hip, and claims to have sustained injury to her eyes and psyche. The WCJ found that defendant's December 6, 2023 Utilization Review noncertification of an outpatient neurological treatment program was timely and binding on the parties. The WCJ further found that defendant's May 5, 2023 Utilization Review noncertification of an outpatient neurological treatment program was untimely, but that the issue of the medical necessity of the requested treatment was moot because of applicant's contemporaneous change of treating physicians.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's denial of the petition was not supported by a fully developed record and that further review and development of the record was necessary under the principles of Patterson and Rivota.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8320332 · 2024-04-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if the petition is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. We observe that based on our review, the WCJ correctly analyzed the provisions of Labor Code section 4600 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.5(f)-(h) in the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision.
The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and found reconsideration an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12466711 · 2023-11-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 26, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to his head, nose and right shoulder, and was entitled to, and awarded, further medical treatment in the form of continued treatment with the Occupational Transitional Living Center Day Program with [a] Spanish interpreter in accordance with Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Appeals Board significant panel decision).
The WCAB rescinded the prior Findings of Fact and Award and remanded the matter to the WCJ to consider the Compromise and Release settlement reached by the parties, without ruling on the merits of the petition for reconsideration.
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.

TINA ODJAGHIAN LAW GROUP
Tina Odjaghian Law Group

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 →

Tina Odjaghian Law Group

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

7 for the applicant

4 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ11532204 · 2025-01-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.11In summary, we agree with the WCJ that defendant has not met its affirmative burden of establishing a material change in applicant's medical treatment or circumstance that would otherwise require defendant to either authorize the requested treatment or submit the request to UR. Because there was no valid medical dispute arising out of a change in condition or circumstance, we concur with the WCJ's determination that defendant is obligated to continue to provide treatment in the form of home health care services, unless and until defendant demonstrates a material change in applicant's condition or circumstance.

The WCJ and WCAB found no persuasive evidence of a material change in applicant's condition to justify termination of ongoing home health care. The treating physician's consistent recommendations and UR certifications supported ongoing medical necessity.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ14943245 · 2024-05-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.93. Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Appeals Board significant panel decision) is applicable to the issue of whether applicant is entitled to continued outpatient rehabilitation treatment at Centre for Neuro Skills (CNS).

The WCAB found Patterson applicable and that defendant failed to prove a change in applicant's condition warranting discontinuation of treatment, entitling applicant to continued outpatient treatment at CNS.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ11449146 · 2023-11-27 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5.... Applicant did not sustain his burden of proof in proving medical necessity of the disputed treatment

Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof by substantial medical evidence to show the medical necessity of the treatment requested in the October 28, 2021 RFA. The evidence was largely boilerplate, non-responsive, and did not incorporate relevant medical reports. Defendant's evidence was more thorough and cured prior defects, outweighing Applicant's evidence.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ11726227 · 2023-09-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.25For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued on June 27, 2023 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration, that the Findings of Fact and Order issued on June 27, 2023 is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:

Defendant failed to meet its burden to show a change in applicant's condition or circumstances to justify discontinuing previously authorized home health care services, supported by substantial medical evidence from Drs. Huang and Franc.

Official decision · page 25 →

ADJ10266237 · 2023-05-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2The parties subsequently reached an accord to utilize Roger Bertoldi, M.D. as an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) in neurology. AME Dr. Bertoldi evaluated applicant and issued a report dated January 20, 2020.

The WCJ and WCAB found that the participation of applicant's sister in the AME evaluation was necessary and permissible because the applicant's ability to communicate was compromised, and the sister was effectively transmitting information on applicant's behalf, consistent with precedent in Belling and Trujillo.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11438423 · 2022-06-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and lien claimant Casa Colina seek reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 25, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a teacher on July 30, 2018, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his brain and head; (2) applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that Patterson v. The Oaks Farms, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910, applies to this matter; and (3) applicant's treatment requests must be in the form of requests for authorization (RFAs), which are subject to utilization review (UR) determinations and appealable only through independent medical review (IMR).

The Board found that the applicant's RFAs sought continued inpatient treatment previously authorized and thus are not subject to UR without substantial medical evidence of a change in condition; the Board rescinded the WCJ's prior order and substituted findings in favor of the applicant for continued treatment until a change is established and a care plan agreed upon.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12727724 · 2026-01-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2On January 15, 2026, applicant filed a petition seeking to withdraw her pending Petition for Reconsideration.

Applicant withdrew the Petition for Reconsideration, leading to dismissal and vacatur of the prior order granting reconsideration.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12989988 · 2025-08-22 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached

Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition as premature and return this matter to the trial level. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside and set a hearing so lien claimant can provide evidence in support of the arguments contained in the Petition and create a record upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ.

The petition for reconsideration was premature and should be treated as a petition to set aside the OACR; the WCAB acted within the 60-day period and provided proper notice of transmission.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ18067229 · 2025-07-10 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the additional reasons given below, we will deny reconsideration.

The WCAB panel found that the defendant did not meet the burden of proof to show a change in applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify discontinuing ongoing home health care, and thus denied the petition for reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12727724 · 2024-07-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 7, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a delivery driver on August 19, 2019, sustained industrial injury to her head, neck, left hand, left elbow, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, both shoulders, and left hip, and claims to have sustained injury to her eyes and psyche. The WCJ found that defendant's December 6, 2023 Utilization Review noncertification of an outpatient neurological treatment program was timely and binding on the parties. The WCJ further found that defendant's May 5, 2023 Utilization Review noncertification of an outpatient neurological treatment program was untimely, but that the issue of the medical necessity of the requested treatment was moot because of applicant's contemporaneous change of treating physicians.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's denial of the petition was not supported by a fully developed record and that further review and development of the record was necessary under the principles of Patterson and Rivota.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8320332 · 2024-04-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if the petition is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. We observe that based on our review, the WCJ correctly analyzed the provisions of Labor Code section 4600 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.5(f)-(h) in the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision.

The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and found reconsideration an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12466711 · 2023-11-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 26, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to his head, nose and right shoulder, and was entitled to, and awarded, further medical treatment in the form of continued treatment with the Occupational Transitional Living Center Day Program with [a] Spanish interpreter in accordance with Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Appeals Board significant panel decision).

The WCAB rescinded the prior Findings of Fact and Award and remanded the matter to the WCJ to consider the Compromise and Release settlement reached by the parties, without ruling on the merits of the petition for reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →