California WCABLaw firm

WCA Law Group, APC

WCA Law Group, APC is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes are AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Copperpoint Legal (1).

Decisions: 9
Years: 2023–2026
Issues disputed: 1
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 6 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.

AOE/COE1

Who they face

2 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

Los Angeles 6
Van Nuys 2
Anaheim 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.

8 for the defense
1 for the applicant

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ18384896 · 2026-01-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.14In this case, we agree with the WCJ that applicant did not meet his burden of proof through substantial medical evidence that he sustained a cumulative injury through August 4, 2023. Dr. Schwartz, the panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME), found applicant had reached maximum medical improvement with regard to the previous July 2016 cumulative injury but that there was no evidence of cumulative trauma through August 4, 2023, as claimed herein. (Dr. Schwartz' 9/19/24 report, at p. 2. Defendant's Exhibit C.) The opinion of primary treating physician (PTP) Dr. Rosenzweig was not based on an adequate history because he failed to review any medical records pertaining to the prior 2016 cumulative injury. This fact alone renders his opinion not substantial medical evidence, making further analysis of his opinion unnecessary.
Applicant did not meet burden of proof through substantial medical evidence; PQME Dr. Schwartz found no evidence of cumulative trauma through the claimed date; PTP Dr. Rosenzweig's opinion was not substantial due to inadequate history; WCJ credibility determination was given great weight.
Official decision · page 14 →
ADJ17209113 · 2026-01-30 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on December 23, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19674146 · 2026-01-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on October 8, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis and the Appeals Board's review.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18331703 · 2025-12-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on November 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The WCAB panel found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18031140 · 2025-11-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on July 3, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus removal was denied.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17009720 · 2025-10-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that further discovery is needed. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal, rescind the July 10, 2025 order, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the July 10, 2025 order setting the matter for trial level and return this matter to the trial for further proceedings. 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
The Appeals Board grants removal because the petitioner showed that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, supported by the WCJ's acknowledgment that additional discovery is warranted.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19035008 · 2025-10-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on July 29, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19774378 · 2025-07-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on June 5, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15950619 · 2023-06-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
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.

WCA LAW GROUP
WCA LAW
WCA LAW GROUP, APC
WCA LAW GROUP. APC
WCA Law Group, APC

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

8 for the defense

1 for the applicant

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ18384896 · 2026-01-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.14In this case, we agree with the WCJ that applicant did not meet his burden of proof through substantial medical evidence that he sustained a cumulative injury through August 4, 2023. Dr. Schwartz, the panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME), found applicant had reached maximum medical improvement with regard to the previous July 2016 cumulative injury but that there was no evidence of cumulative trauma through August 4, 2023, as claimed herein. (Dr. Schwartz' 9/19/24 report, at p. 2. Defendant's Exhibit C.) The opinion of primary treating physician (PTP) Dr. Rosenzweig was not based on an adequate history because he failed to review any medical records pertaining to the prior 2016 cumulative injury. This fact alone renders his opinion not substantial medical evidence, making further analysis of his opinion unnecessary.

Applicant did not meet burden of proof through substantial medical evidence; PQME Dr. Schwartz found no evidence of cumulative trauma through the claimed date; PTP Dr. Rosenzweig's opinion was not substantial due to inadequate history; WCJ credibility determination was given great weight.

Official decision · page 14 →

ADJ17209113 · 2026-01-30 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on December 23, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19674146 · 2026-01-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on October 8, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis and the Appeals Board's review.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18331703 · 2025-12-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on November 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The WCAB panel found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18031140 · 2025-11-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on July 3, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus removal was denied.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17009720 · 2025-10-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that further discovery is needed. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal, rescind the July 10, 2025 order, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the July 10, 2025 order setting the matter for trial level and return this matter to the trial for further proceedings. 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

The Appeals Board grants removal because the petitioner showed that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, supported by the WCJ's acknowledgment that additional discovery is warranted.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19035008 · 2025-10-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on July 29, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19774378 · 2025-07-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on June 5, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15950619 · 2023-06-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →