Trovillion Inveiss & Demakis

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• San Diego 8
• Los Angeles 3
• Van Nuys 2
• Santa Ana 1
• Stockton 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
• 6 for the defense
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 13 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.

• ADJ17006634 · 2024-11-05 · San Diego District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative removal, of the July 31, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant was entitled to proceed with the separate chiropractic Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) panel for applicant's December 20, 1996 through December 23, 2021 cumulative injury claim to the hands, wrists, arms, knee, and back rather than return to Dr. Jeffrey Schiffman who is currently serving as the orthopedic panel QME for applicant's December 23, 2021 specific injury claim to the head, shoulder, ear, and neck.

  The claim forms were not admitted into evidence, so the Board could not determine if Navarro applied; substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was denied; reconsideration was inadequate remedy; thus removal granted and matter returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15865183 · 2024-10-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4(Lab. Code, § 4656(c)(2).) Where separate injuries result in concurrent periods of temporary disability, the 104-week

  The Appeals Board found that the 104-week limitation periods run concurrently for separate injuries causing concurrent temporary disability, but findings of fact must be made in each case, and the cases must be consolidated for hearing. Since only one case was submitted and no findings were made for the other case, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ3107843 · 2024-03-18 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on August 24, 2020, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In the F&A, the WCJ found that defendant was liable for penalties and attorney's fees for delaying reimbursement of replacement security system cameras, which maintained a security system that defendant previously authorized and installed in applicant's home.

  The WCJ found defendant liable for penalties and attorney's fees due to unreasonable delay in reimbursing the replacement security system, which was considered medical treatment as prescribed by the treating physician and previously authorized and paid for by defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9247606 · 2022-10-24 · San Diego District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, who is representing herself, and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award (and Orders) of August 11, 2022, wherein it was found that, while employed on November 26, 2013 as a Fire Investigator II, applicant sustained industrial injury to her right knee, right elbow and right shoulder, and left hip, but not to her neck, back or right hip. It was found that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 7%, after apportionment to other factors. Additionally, the WCJ found, "The applicant sustained periods of temporary disability for treatment of the left hip subject to the 104 week cap on temporary disability in an amount to be adjusted by the parties with the WCAB reserving jurisdiction." Previously, in a Decision after Reconsideration of October 29, 2021, we1 affirmed the WCJ's finding (in a Findings and Award of August 5, 2021) that applicant "did not sustain injury to her neck, back, or right hip as a result of the incident on November 26, 2013." (Decision After Reconsideration of October 29, 202, Finding No. 3.)

  Permanent disability was found to be 7% after apportionment, with a monetary award calculated accordingly.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11091494 · 2022-08-15 · San Diego District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5at pp.11-12.) The WCJ determined that while applicant had the requisite knowledge of the work-relatedness of her injuries as early as 2009, the evidence did not establish disability arising from the injury prior to applicant's first carpal tunnel release surgery in 2017. Accordingly, the WCJ set the date of injury at October 10, 2017, the date applicant first had both disability in the form of compensable temporary disability following surgery, and knowledge of its industrial causation. (Id. at p.13.) Because the application for adjudication was filed on November 9, 2017, the commencement of proceedings for collection of benefits was within one year of the date of injury, and the claim was not barred by the limitations period of section 5405. (Ibid.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found that although applicant had knowledge of the injury as early as 2009, compensable disability did not occur until October 10, 2017, the date of first surgery with temporary disability, making the claim timely filed within one year thereafter.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10393358 · 2022-06-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar all agreed that the employee has sustained cumulative trauma to the left shoulder and right knee as well as the low back. (Report, p. 2.) The physicians received accurate histories and made identical findings of injury, need for care and disabilities. Hence the preponderance of evidence supports the finding of injury to the left shoulder and right knee. (Report, p. 3.)

  The preponderance of evidence from Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar supports injury to the left shoulder and right knee, despite defendant's arguments about prior injury and inconsistent testimony.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9103770 · 2022-04-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings of Fact of September 23, 2019, the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a driver/loader/unloader during the period July 14, 2008 to July 24, 2013, sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, left knee, and right ankle, and that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his right knee, elbows, left ankle, feet, head, skin, abdomen (hernia), cardiovascular system (hypertension), endocrine system (diabetes and obesity), gastrointestinal system (GERD/gastritis), sleep loss or psyche.

  The WCJ's findings of industrial injury to cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, left knee, and right ankle were affirmed based on substantial evidence including Dr. Brown's medical opinions.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9247606 · 2021-10-29 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7The Court assigned an Independent Medical Evaluator (IME) on October 22, 2018. The court specifically asked the IME to address three specific questions. These were 1) Whether the cervical spine was injured in the incident or as a compensable consequence of the right shoulder injury; 2) whether the non-industrial right hip was aggravated by the incident on 11/23/2013; and 3) whether the left hip was injured as a compensable consequence of the right hip injury (assuming the right hip to be industrial). See Minutes of Hearing 10/22/2018, page 2. Based on the reports of the IME Dr. Jeffrey Bernicker dated December 4, 2018 (Def. Ex. 18), January 15, 2019 (Def. Ex. 17); April 30, 2019 (Def. Ex. 16); March 16, 2020 (Def. Ex. 15) and his deposition of April 11, 2019 (Def. Ex. 19) it is found that the applicant did not sustain injury to her neck, back and [right hip] as a result of the fall on November 26, 2013.

  Based on the reports of Dr. Bernicker and Dr. Moazzaz, the applicant did not sustain injury to the neck, back, or right hip as a result of the fall on November 26, 2013.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ8818515 · 2026-06-30 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that the matter is ready to proceed to trial. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal. Removal 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, 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

  The petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13216551 · 2025-03-03 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration1, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

  The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for consideration of the proposed settlement because the District Office cannot act while the case is pending on reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ476174 · 2025-02-10 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4ultimately 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.

  The petition was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12552472 · 2022-08-26 · Stockton District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In this case, the WCJ did not create a record and did not provide reasons for dismissing the Application for Adjudication of Claim until applicant filed a petition for reconsideration. The WCJ's approach is inconsistent with the requirements of Hamilton, supra.

  The WCJ's dismissal lacked a proper evidentiary record and reasons, violating procedural rules and denying the applicant a merits determination, so the dismissal was rescinded and the case remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• TROVILLION, INVEISS & DEMAKIS
• TROVILLION INVEISS
• TROVILLION INVEISS & DEMAKIS
• Trovillion Inveiss & Demakis
• TROVILLION, INVEISS, DEMAKIS & HANSEN
• Trovillion, Inveiss, Demakis & Hansen
• TROVILLION INVEISS DEMAKIS & HANSEN

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.