Woolford & Associates

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 14
• Van Nuys 14
• Marina del Rey 6
• Santa Barbara 2
• Marna del Rey 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.

• 17 for the applicant
• 17 for the defense
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 34 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.

• ADJ20267126 · 2026-05-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 3, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, back, arms, and shoulders, while employed as a sales representative during the period from March 15, 2008 to December 18, 2009. The WCJ further found that the applicant's claim is not barred by the statutes of limitations; the claim is not barred by laches; the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Raffy Mirzayan, M.D., was not timely served; defendant formally objected to the timeliness of Dr. Mirzayan's report prior to the service of that report; the reporting of Dr. Mirzayan has been stricken from the record, the court lacks sufficient credible medical evidence to adjudicate injury AOE/COE; and the record needs to be further developed in order to adjudicate injury AOE/COE.

  The WCJ found applicant's credible testimony that he reported injury to his manager and was unaware of workers' compensation rights, tolling the statute of limitations due to employer's failure to notify and provide claim form; defendant failed to prove affirmative defenses of statute of limitations and laches; PQME Dr. Mirzayan's report was stricken as untimely, leaving insufficient medical evidence, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11142067 · 2026-03-06 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6First, the apportionment opinion of QME Dr. Purcell does not constitute substantial medical evidence as it is conclusory and without adequate explanation. Not only is it conclusory, but it is also vague as Dr. Purcell states that "other factors" caused disability without describing any such factors. The apportionment opinion of Dr. Purcell cannot be followed.

  The Board found that the QME Dr. Purcell's apportionment opinion was conclusory and vague, thus not substantial evidence, and instead relied on the parties' prior stipulation to Dr. Roth's opinion assigning 50% apportionment to left knee arthritis. Defendant failed its burden of proof on apportionment to other body parts. The Board awarded 54% permanent partial disability based on this reasoning.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ18961023 · 2026-01-23 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7After careful consideration of the record, we agree with the WCJ that cost petitioner failed to demonstrate that defendant's actions were frivolous or in bad faith so as to warrant sanctions pursuant to section 5813. Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration.

  The WCAB found no evidence that defendant's delays in payment were bad faith or frivolous, but rather routine errors, thus sanctions were not warranted.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11200520 · 2025-12-04 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Before addressing the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration, we note that applicant does not allege error in the WCJ's findings that she did not sustain specific injury in case number ADJ12140721 or cumulative injury to the psyche in case number ADJ11200520. Since those issues are not raised, they are waived. (See Lab. Code, § 5502(e)(3);2 see also Gould v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1059 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 157], Griffith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1260 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 145].) Accordingly, we will substitute findings that leave those determinations undisturbed.

  Applicant did not raise the issue of cumulative trauma injury to the psyche, thus waiving it.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ15158069 · 2025-11-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. Where the evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, we are not persuaded that there is substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision.

  The Appeals Board found the record was not properly developed and that the WCJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, warranting reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10991851 · 2025-04-03 · Marina del Rey District OfficeStatute of limitationsdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.6In this case, the WCJ did not determine when applicant (1) had knowledge sufficient to establish that she either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that her disability was caused by her employment; and (2) first suffered disability based upon medical evidence indicating when the cumulative effect of her injury ripened into disability. (See Lab. Code, § 5412; see also Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. 221 Cal.App.4th 1116 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257].

  The WCJ did not make the necessary factual determinations to establish the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury, so the issue was deferred for further development.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10884813 · 2025-02-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.42. Defendant did not conduct a timely utilization review for the prescription of 24 hour home health care issued by Dr. Bertoldi on May 29, 2024. 24 hour home health care is found to be medically necessary based on the current evidentiary record.

  The WCJ found 24-hour home health care medically necessary and that defendant did not conduct a timely utilization review. The WCAB granted reconsideration and deferred final decision for further review of the merits and record.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13196373 · 2025-02-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5We thus find that lien claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant sustained dental injury. Since this is the only body part relevant to lien claimant's medical treatment lien, we need not consider whether applicant sustained injury to any other body part. We will grant reconsideration, issue a finding that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to the teeth, and defer all other issues. If any other body part is relevant to any future issue in this case, the issue can be raised by a relevant party at the trial level.

  The lien claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant sustained dental injury; Dr. Schames's opinion lacked substantial evidence and adequate explanation linking dental injury to industrial exposure.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13609782 · 2024-12-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Dr. Gabriel's and Dr. Pietruszka's explanations of apportionment are conclusory and do

  The WCAB found that the apportionment opinions of Dr. Gabriel and Dr. Pietruszka were conclusory and lacked substantial medical evidence, entitling the applicant to an unapportioned award of permanent disability.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17790502 · 2024-09-30 · Los Angeles District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8Because the record fails to fully address the medical evidence of the August 16, 2023 Work Status Note and the Dr. Elias Report of September 13, 2023, we conclude that the record should be further developed on the issue of whether the evidentiary record establishes applicant's claim for temporary disability benefits for the period of June 5, 2023 through October 9, 2023. (See Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [65 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [72 Cal.Rptr.2d 898, 63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261] (finding that the Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when appropriate to fully adjudicate the issues); see also § 5313.)

  The WCJ found insufficient medical evidence to establish temporary disability for the period, but the WCAB deferred the issue for further development due to incomplete consideration of medical evidence including Dr. Elias's reports.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2024-08-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence in the existing record to find that lien claimant did rebut the presumption "affecting the burden of proof" in section 139.21(g) that her lien claims "and all underlying bills for service and claims for compensation asserted therein, [arose] from the conduct subjecting the physician, practitioner, or provider to suspension..." (Lab. Code, § 139.21(g).)

  The Appeals Board found that lien claimant rebutted the presumption under Labor Code section 139.21(g) because the fraudulent conduct for which she was convicted occurred in 2006, before she began treating workers' compensation patients in 2009, so the liens did not arise from the conduct subjecting her to suspension.

• ADJ8119670 · 2024-08-06 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6On February 7, 2020 the WCJ issued four separate decisions. In ADJ8119670, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE while employed by Collins to the neck, back, bilateral upper extremities (shoulders and wrists), pulmonary system (lungs and respiratory system) and gastrointestinal system, but not to the right hip, right leg or internal system (other than gastrointestinal system), ears, nose, or throat. (February 6, 2020 F&A, Findings of Fact, Nos. 7 and 8.) The WCJ awarded temporary and permanent disability, awarded attorney fees, and found a need for further medical care. In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that the findings of injury, temporary and permanent disability, and apportionment were based on the findings of AME Dr. Brourman and Dr. Scott. (February 6, 2020 F&A, Opinion on Decision, pp. 2-3.)

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE based on substantial medical evidence from AME Dr. Brourman and treating physician Dr. Scott, and the WCAB affirmed this finding after reconsideration, rejecting challenges to the admissibility and sufficiency of the medical evidence and the statute of limitations defense.

  Official decision · page 6 →

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.

• WOOLFORD & ASSOCIATES
• WOOLFORD ASSOCIATES
• WOOLFORD AND ASSOCIATES
• Woolford & Associates
• Woolford Associates

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.