Cannon Cochran Management Services, INC.

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 8
• Los Angeles 3
• Oakland 3
• Sacramento 3
• San Jose 3
• Oxnard 2
• Pomona 2
• San Bernardino 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• Long Beach 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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 21 for the defense
• 14 for the applicant
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 37 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’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 claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ18656111 · 2026-06-26 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on March 3, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that defendant did not prove that decedent's death was proximately caused by intoxication. Defendant asserts that the WCJ erred because the evidence supports the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner ("QME") that intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury.

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that decedent's intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury, due to lack of concrete evidence and reliance on speculative assumptions in the QME report.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19203396 · 2026-05-29 · San Jose District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal (the Court) issued an order on October 1, 2025 denying a petition for writ of review filed by counsel for defendants, Llarena, Murdock, Lopez & Aziza, APC, in this matter, and remanded the matter to the Appeals Board for the purpose of making a supplemental award to respondent the applicant for reasonable attorney's fees for services rendered in connection with this petition. (Lab. Code, § 5801.)" (Order, October 1, 2025, emphasis added.) The Court's order was based on its finding "that there was no reasonable basis for the petition (See Lab. Code, § 5950; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1074.)" (Ibid.)

  The Court found no reasonable basis for defendants' petition for writ of review and remanded for supplemental attorney's fees to applicant and her counsel, which the Board awarded as stipulated by the parties.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18926429 · 2026-04-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Applicant claimed injury to her bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, back, knees, arms, and shoulders, while employed as a customer service representative/billing representative by defendant TalentBurst, Inc. from June 6, 2022 to December 26, 2023. Defendant denies injury AOE/COE.

  The WCJ found insufficient substantial medical evidence on causation and ordered further development of the record with supplemental QME reporting; the Appeals Board upheld this and denied reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ15972441 · 2026-04-06 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Next, applicant argues that the June 2, 2025 report by PTP Dr. Hannani "contained new and significant medical findings" requiring that defendant conduct a new UR despite the May 20, 2025 UR denial of the same surgery recommended in Dr. Hannani's May 9, 2025 report. However, based on a line-by-line comparison of Dr. Hannani's May 9, 2025 and June 2, 2025 reports, it is noted that the reports are identical except for 4 paragraphs at the bottom of page 3 of the June 2, 2025 report. In other words, the sections of the reports under the headings of Subjective Complaints, Objective Complaints, Motor Examination, Sensation, Reflexes, Lower Extremities Examination, Bilateral Hips, Vascular Examination, Diagnosis, Prescriptions Given and Disability Status are word for word the same.

  The June 2, 2025 report by PTP Dr. Hannani did not identify any material change in the applicant's medical condition subsequent to the May 20, 2025 utilization review denial. The reports were nearly identical except for clarifying paragraphs that did not constitute new evidence. Applicant's testimony of worsening symptoms did not specify a material change after the May 20, 2025 denial. Therefore, no new utilization review was required and the June 5, 2025 deferral was reasonable.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ14926383 · 2025-12-19 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on October 6, 2025 wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) held, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant as a janitor on July 24, 2020, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the lumbar spine and right shoulder resulting in a 78% permanent disability, plus a life pension thereafter, per the opinions of Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Nathan Morello, D.C.

  The WCJ and WCAB found substantial medical evidence from Dr. Morello supporting injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine and right shoulder.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16350553 · 2025-08-25 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 30, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the reporting of QME Dr. Lorenzo Hughes violated Labor Code section 46281; that the reporting does not constitute substantial medical evidence; and, that it must be stricken from the record. The WCJ also granted defendant's petition for a replacement QME panel and ordered that a replacement panel in pain medicine be provided within 30 days.

  The WCJ found Dr. Hughes violated section 4628 by allowing a third party to summarize medical records, but the WCAB found due process was not afforded to Dr. Hughes before striking the reports, so the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19203396 · 2025-01-21 · San Jose District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the November 1, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant, while employed by defendant as a customer service rep, sustained an August 29, 2023 (ADJ19457849) injury arising out of and arising in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the left wrist and left knee and claims to have sustained injury to various other body parts; and that during period from January 1, 2020 through February 15, 2024 (ADJ19203396), sustained injury AOE/COE to the face, neck, upper extremities, back, and lower extremities. The WCJ also found defendant's orthopedic panel 7705125 to be valid and applicant's chiropractic panel 7694889 to be invalid.

  The Appeals Board found that the applicant's use of the specific injury claim number to request a chiropractic QME panel was valid because both the specific and cumulative injury claims were filed before the evaluation, and the same QME should evaluate both claims. The Board emphasized substance over form and rejected the defendant's argument that the incorrect claim number invalidated the panel request.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15811594 · 2025-01-03 · San Bernardino District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, we are unable to provide meaningful review due to the state of the record. At issue is the status of defendant's petition to set aside. Neither the merits of that petition, nor the question of whether that petition had been abandoned, were listed as issues at the February 7, 2023 trial. Instead, the list of trial issues included only "timeliness of motion to set aside." While the petition to set aside, the response to the petition to set aside, and the petition for penalties are properly filed to invoke the jurisdiction of the WCAB, they are part of the record of proceedings. But, they are not evidence, and there is no summary judgement in workers' compensation cases. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) In contrast, when a hearing is held or a settlement document is approved, an action has been taken by the WCAB, and judicial notice is proper.

  The WCAB found that the petition to set aside was not adjudicated on the merits and that proceeding without a proper record violated defendant's due process rights, warranting remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16961549 · 2024-09-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Applicant asserts that the medical evidence that was submitted shows a continuing entitlement to TTD. The undersigned reviewed the evidence and indicated that the applicant did not meet their burden of proof. The party with the affirmative on the issue has the burden of proof. Tyler, McClune and McDuffie does not apply as the PQME report is substantial. The reports submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate a change in the applicant's condition to merit further review by the PQME as the PQME already indicated that the MRI's should be provided under future medical.

  The applicant did not meet the burden of proof for temporary total disability; the PQME report was substantial and found the applicant P&S/MMI with no TTD period.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9435746 · 2024-08-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Applicant's Exhibits 7-9, reports of prior PTP, Dr. Quesada, should similarly be admitted into the record. The WCJ argues that under AD Rule 9785(b)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(b)(1)), applicant is not to have more than one PTP at any given time. There is no evidence in the record, however, to suggest that applicant was being seen by another PTP while Dr. Quesada served as applicant's PTP. Further, MPN issues aside, applicant is not prohibited from seeking a new PTP at any point in time and may replace a PTP for any number of reasons. Replacement, however, does not mean the reports of the prior PTP suddenly become invalid. Ultimately, the fact that the WCJ is unsure of Dr. Quesada's status is irrelevant insofar as the issue of admissibility is concerned. As with consulting physician reports, due process requires the admission of all relevant reports, including the prior PTP reports of Dr. Quesada.

  The WCJ excluded secondary and consulting physician reports and prior PTP reports, but the WCAB found no legal basis for exclusion and held due process requires admission of all relevant reports.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14729505 · 2024-06-07 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant, a 39-year-old certified nurse assistant, suffered an accepted injury to her thoracic spine while helping pull a patient into bed. The primary issue at trial was permanent disability. At trial, applicant relied on reports from the primary treating physician, Gary Martinovsky, M.D. Defendant relied on reports from the QME, Edward Jennings, D.C. The parties stipulated to the PPD ratings of Dr. Martinovsky's report(s) (32%) and Dr. Jennings report(s) (8%).

  The WCJ found the primary treating physician's (Dr. Martinovsky) opinion to be substantial evidence and more persuasive than the QME's (Dr. Jennings) opinion, awarding 32% PPD based on credible testimony and medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12812938 · 2024-05-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7As demonstrated above, the medical treatment by Mayer Schames, D.D.S., a California stock corporation doing business as The Dental Trauma Center, was reasonable and consistent with Labor Code § 4604.5. In addition, its medical reporting was reasonable in accordance with Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785. RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned WCJ respectfully recommends denial of the Defendant's petition for reconsideration dated April 5, 2024. Date: April 8, 2024

  The WCJ found the medical treatment reasonable and consistent with Labor Code 4604.5 based on Dr. Schames's detailed medical necessity opinion; the WCAB adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and denied reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 7 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
• Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc.
• Cannon Cochran Management Services
• CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES
• CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.
• CANNON COCHRAN IRVINE
• Cannon Cochran
• CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES INCORPORATED
• Cannon Cochran Scottsdale
• CANNON COCHRAN

Is this your company and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.