Tobin Lucks

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 28
• Los Angeles 17
• Anaheim 10
• Marina del Rey 9
• Oxnard 5
• Pomona 5
• Santa Barbara 5
• Bakersfield 4
• Santa Ana 4
• Long Beach 2
• San Bernardino 2
• Santa Rosa 2

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.

• 50 for the defense
• 26 for the applicant
• 19 returned for more record

Counted over 91 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.

• ADJ20384548 · 2026-09-04 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on June 3, 2026 by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed on January 15, 2024 as a seasonal helper by defendant, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his left shoulder, and that the record was devoid of substantial medical evidence as to injury AOE/COE, and that the medical evidentiary record needs to be developed. The WCJ further found that applicant’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant contends that applicant’s failure to appear at either depositions, court hearings, or otherwise participate in his claim does not warrant development of the record, and that the findings of fact should be amended to reflect that applicant has failed to carry his burden of establishing injury AOE/COE. Defendant also asserts that the WCJ should have deferred a finding as to the statute of limitations defense without a finding as to either date of injury or injury. Applicant did not file an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) on July 9, 2026 recommending that defendant’s petition be granted and that the finding regarding statute of limitations be amended.

  The WCJ found the medical record needed development to determine injury AOE/COE, but the WCAB rescinded the findings and remanded for further proceedings due to lack of proper notice and representation issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3375264 · 2026-07-21 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9evidence to support a denial of benefits. (citation.)” (Kyle v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (City and County of San Francisco) (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 614, 621.) Here, in her Opinion on Decision (OOD), the WCJ provided the following explanation regarding her finding that there was no substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the neck and bilateral shoulders during the periods from March 12, 2000 through March 12, 2001 (ADJ4499046) and from August 23, 2003 through August 23, 2004 (ADJ3207121): Dr. Feiwell, at the request of CIGA, evaluates Applicant, over four years after the Order issued dismissing the original Petition for Change of Administration. In his report of December 12, 2018, he states “At this juncture, I can state that very little if any of complaints or findings are likely due to cumulative trauma and are due to the sequalae of the specific injury, his prior car accident and most significantly his cerebral palsy.” 21 He further states, “I cannot state with medical certainly that any of his increasing complaints of pain are due to anything other than his underlying cerebral palsy and the prior specific injury in 2003.” 22 He does request the complete medical file and treating physicians records, as well as a formal job analysis.

  The WCJ found no substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the neck and bilateral shoulders during the periods from March 12, 2000 through March 12, 2001 and from August 23, 2003 through August 23, 2004, based on medical reports that lacked sufficient reasoning or relied on inaccurate job histories.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ13021836 · 2026-06-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration by defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period. In Case No. ADJ20509813, the WCJ found that applicant sustained

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to the excretory and reproductive systems during various employment periods, but the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on settlement approval.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14834670 · 2026-05-26 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant State of California, Department of Social Services, In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the applicant (decedent), while employed during the period December 3, 2020, through December 17, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by COVID-19, resulting in death, and that IHSS did not meet their burden of proof to establish that decedent had concurrent employment as at the time of his injury.

  The QME report by Dr. Betsy Kuriakose was found to be well-reasoned, based on an adequate history and evidence, supporting the finding that decedent contracted COVID-19 during employment, resulting in death. The defendant's arguments against causation and alternative sources of infection were rejected due to lack of evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ108951 · 2026-03-06 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.12Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we amend the Joint FA&O to defer the issues of permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney fees. We otherwise affirm the Joint FA&O.

  The WCJ initially awarded 100% permanent disability with no apportionment, but the WCAB deferred the issues of permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney fees for further consideration due to the need for proper apportionment consistent with controlling precedent.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ18421273 · 2026-03-03 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of two decisions issued concurrently by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In a Findings and Award of October 30, 2025 in case ADJ18421273, it was found that while employed as a water system technician on December 28, 2020, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right shoulder, causing permanent disability of 11% and the need for further medical treatment. In a Findings and Award of October 30, 2025 in cased ADJ18421294, it was found that while employed as a water system technician during a cumulative period ending July 7, 2021, applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical and lumbar spine causing permanent disability of 23% and the need for further medical treatment, but that there was no cumulative injury to the shoulders, elbows, knees, or in the forms of hypertension or diabetes.

  The WCJ's permanent disability ratings and injury scope findings were based on incomplete medical evidence, particularly regarding left shoulder, elbows, knees, and internal medicine claims, requiring further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16423182 · 2026-02-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the Order Imposing Sanctions and Costs Against Patrick Petronella and Pacific MRI issued by the WCJ on November 21, 2025 is RESCINDED and this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ consistent with this opinion.

  The WCJ issued sanctions without holding a hearing or creating an adequate record, violating due process requirements; the WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the sanctions order.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ10222709 · 2026-01-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2FACTUAL BACKGROUND On November 24, 2020, the matter proceeded to trial in ADJ10222709. In that case, applicant claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE while employed by UCLA as a hospital lab technician, during the period May 1, 2014 through November 11, 2015, to her bilateral upper extremities, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral arms, neck, digestive system (stomach), fingers, both shoulders, elbows, internal, dental, nervous system, pulmonary and vision. The issues raised for determination were stated as follows: 1. Injury arising out of and in the course of employment. 2. Applicant attorney's motion to strike PQME Klassen is vigorously opposed by both defendants, including possible deposition unavailability. 3. Applicant's request for an additional panel in internal medicine is opposed by defendants. 4. Applicant's attorney objects to trial at this time and seeks further discovery.

  The WCJ failed to make findings on injury AOE/COE and improperly based denial solely on applicant's lack of credibility; the Appeals Board requires medical evidence for injury determination and remands for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ6508173 · 2026-01-16 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations in applicant's Petition and defendant's Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report with respect thereto. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&A, and substitute a new F&A that finds that applicant sustained injury to her lungs, upper digestive system (in the form of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), psyche and in the form of a sleep disorder, but not in the form of METs because it is a measure of functional limitation and not a separate body part; and to defer the issue of permanent disability, apportionment and attorney fees, and the issue of whether the increase under section 4658(d) applies.

  The Board found injury to lungs, upper digestive system (GERD), psyche, and sleep disorder but not to METs, which is a measure of functional limitation, not a body part. The issue of permanent disability, apportionment, and the 15% increase under section 4658(d) was deferred for further development due to incomplete medical opinion and need for further record development.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ19894287 · 2025-11-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings of Fact and Orders (FF&O) issued August 8, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant failed in his burden of proving he sustained industrial injury to his back, hips, ankle, diabetes, internal, and psyche arising out of and in the course of his employment.

  The Appeals Board found insufficient expert medical evidence on causation and injury, requiring further development of the record with expert medical opinion. The WCJ's credibility findings were to be revisited after such evidence is obtained.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13021836 · 2025-09-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) seeks reconsideration of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period.

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to applicant's excretory and reproductive systems for specific and cumulative trauma periods, supported by credible testimony and medical evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently explained and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11166186 · 2025-02-03 · Pomona District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9982(d)(1).) Although the above statute and regulation does not allow for payment of a subpoena duces tecum served within 30 days of a request for records, it does not state that a request for records must be requested before they can be subpoenaed. In other words, there is no mandate or requirement that an applicant or their attorney must make a request for records from the employer or the insurer prior to requesting that a subpoena issue for records. Thus, a failure to make such a request is immaterial. Accordingly, we grant the Petition, amend the F&O to find that the subpoena to Millan's Ranchito and the service request to WCIRB are valid (Finding of Fact 4), to find that the WCAB has jurisdiction to the issue of the amount of payment owed (Finding of Fact 7), to order that cost petitioner is entitled to payment (Order), and otherwise affirm the F&O. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that cost petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration of the of November 7, 2024 Findings and Order is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the November 7, 2024 Findings and Order is AFFIRMED except that it is AMENDED as provided below.

  Cost petitioner met burden under Labor Code sections 4620 and 4621 for medical-legal costs; subpoenas and service request were valid; WCAB has jurisdiction to determine payment; defendant waived objections by failing to timely object or provide EOR.

  Official decision · page 9 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 15.

• TOBIN LUCKS
• TOBIN LUCKS, LLP
• Tobin Lucks
• TOBIN LUCKS LLP
• Tobin Lucks LLP
• LAW OFFICES OF TOBIN LUCKS
• TOBIN – LUCKS LLP
• Tobin Lucks, LLP
• Law Offices of Tobin Lucks LLP
• LAW OFFICE OF TOBIN LUCKS
• TOBIN & LUCKS, LLP
• Tobin – Lucks, LLP

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.