CCMSI

What they litigate

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

• Apportionment2
• Jurisdiction / venue2
• Temporary disability2
• Psyche AOE/COE1
• Permanent total disability1
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131

Where they appear

• Anaheim 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Los Angeles 2
• Marina del Rey 1
• Oakland 1
• Riverside 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Santa Rosa 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.

• 6 for the defense
• 4 returned for more record
• 3 for the applicant

Counted over 12 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.

• ADJ17092437 · 2025-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6reports of Dr. Kharrazi, Dr. Purcell, Dr. Kropf, Dr. Lebow, and the post-trial briefing of the parties, it is found that Applicant has not yet reached Maximum Medical Improvement." (11/14/24 Opinion, p. 3.) However, the WCJ did not point to any specific evidence or testimony to support this finding. Instead, QME Dr. Purcell found that applicant had reached MMI. (Jt. Ex. A, p. 23; Jt. Ex. C, p. 3.) The medical evidence and applicant's testimony do not provide substantial evidence otherwise. Thus, the finding regarding MMI and temporary disability benefits must be rescinded. As there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the finding regarding MMI and therefore the provision of temporary disability benefits, the attorney's fees based on this finding must be rescinded as well.

  The WCJ's finding that applicant had not reached MMI and was entitled to retroactive temporary disability benefits was not supported by substantial evidence. QME Dr. Purcell found applicant had reached MMI, and the WCJ did not point to specific evidence to support a contrary finding. The finding and related attorney's fees were rescinded and the matter remanded.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9095473 · 2024-05-31 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our preliminary review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration to issue an order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800 that the proceedings and testimony from the February 13, 2024 trial in this matter be transcribed and promptly filed in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS), with simultaneous notice of the filing to all active parties and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Office of the Commissioners. Thereafter, the parties shall have twenty days from receipt of the trial transcript, plus any applicable days for mailing, in which to file supplemental pleadings in EAMS.

  The WCJ denied transcript requests as no material inaccuracies in the summary were shown; the WCAB found transcript warranted due to importance of testimony and prior reliance on partial transcripts, granting reconsideration to order transcript and allow supplemental pleadings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12903013 · 2024-05-06 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3In my discussion of the substantialness and legal validity of that opinion in the FA&O, I wrote,

  The Appeals Board preliminarily found it unclear if substantial medical evidence supported the apportionment finding, warranting reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12139553 · 2024-04-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813remanded

  Determinative passage · p.3DISCUSSION The Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction over fees to be allowed or paid to applicants' attorneys. (Vierra v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 (Vierra).) In calculating attorney's fees, our basic statutory command is that the fees awarded must be "reasonable." (Lab. Code, § 4903, 4906(a) & (d).) Pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4906, in determining what constitutes a "reasonable" attorney's fee, the Board must consider four factors: (1) the responsibility assumed by the attorney; (2) the care exercised in representing the applicant; (3) the time involved; and (4) the results obtained by the attorney. (Lab. Code, § 4906(d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10844.) Although not binding, WCAB/DIR Policy & Procedure Manual, section 1.140 also provides guidance in our analysis of this matter.

  The WCJ's basis for awarding 12% attorney fees was not stated, so the WCAB deferred the issue for further proceedings to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12766196 · 2024-03-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In addition to the WCJ's well-reasoned Report, we observe the following. Defendant St. Louis Rams contend the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3600.5(c) because applicant had less than 20 percent of his duty days with the Rams. (Rams' Petition, dated January 19, 2023, at p. 6:11.) However, the WCJ found subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury pursuant to section 3600.5(a) when the Rams entered an oral contract with applicant in California. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) The WCJ's Report observes:

  The WCJ found and the panel adopted that the applicant entered into oral contracts of hire with the Rams and Seahawks in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(a).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8734121 · 2022-07-19 · Anaheim District OfficeApportionmentdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.8Although we are deferring issues of permanent disability and apportionment, we note that to be substantial evidence on the issue of the approximate percentages of permanent disability due to the direct results of the injury and the approximate percentage of permanent disability due to other factors, a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 [2005 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 71] (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Further, a medical report is not substantial evidence unless it sets forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions. (Granado v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399, 407 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647] (a mere legal conclusion does not furnish a basis for a finding); Zemke v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 794, 799-801 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 358] (an opinion that fails to disclose its underlying basis and gives a bare legal conclusion does not constitute substantial evidence).) Thus, while we express no opinion as to the validity of the apportionment on the record before us, we note that valid apportionment must reflect the principles espoused above.

  The Board deferred the issue of apportionment pending further development of the record, noting that valid apportionment must be based on substantial evidence and reasonable medical probability, not speculation.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12139553 · 2024-12-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on November 26, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Reconsideration, leading to its dismissal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14138693 · 2024-11-26 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).)

  The petitions for reconsideration filed on July 31, 2024 and October 9, 2024 were untimely as they were filed after the 25-day deadline from the May 10, 2024 Findings and Order and after the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act following case transmission on September 27, 2024.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11332049 · 2023-10-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant 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 merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

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

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11106272 · 2022-04-22 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant 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 merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13380667 · 2021-09-27 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The petition was denied because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →

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.

• CCMSI
• CCMSI-CANNON COCHRANE IRVINE

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.