California WCABClaims administrator

Matrix Absence Management

Matrix Absence Management is named as a claims administrator in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Sanctions under Labor Code §5813 (2), AOE/COE (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). Defense most often ran through Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer (2). The employer appearing most often is Glasswerks La, INC. Co./avalon Glass and Mirror (3). The office that heard the most of them is Long Beach.

Decisions: 9
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 6

What they litigate

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

Who defends them

7 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Whose claims they run

Glasswerks La, INC. Co./avalon Glass and Mirror3
Abbott Laboratories2
Leprino Foods1
South State Towing1
Tawa Supermarket INC.1
University of the Pacific1

Where they appear

Long Beach 3
Van Nuys 2
Fresno 1
Oakland 1
Pomona 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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

5 for the defense
4 for the applicant

Counted over 9 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ13614921 · 2026-02-23 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.18Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not believe that the evidence supports the imposition of sanctions against Petronella, and we grant the Petition for Reconsideration and rescind the F&O and grant the Petition for Disqualification and order that the matter be returned to the Presiding WCJ for assignment to a new WCJ.
The Appeals Board found insufficient evidence to support the WCJ's imposition of sanctions against lien representative Patrick Petronella and concluded that the WCJ's actions raised doubts about fairness and due process, warranting disqualification and reassignment.
Official decision · page 18 →
ADJ10767199 · 2022-04-18 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4If the employee disputes a medical determination made by the primary treating physician, including a determination that the employee should be released from care, the dispute shall be resolved under the applicable procedures set forth at Labor Code sections 4060, 4061 4062, 4600.5, 4616.3, or 4616.4.... (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(b)(3).) Here, the record contains no evidence that at any time applicant objected to Dr. Berg's determination that he needed no more medical treatment and was released from care. In the C&R applicant stipulated that he was working his usual and customary duties up to the termination of his employment and the trial record does not include any evidence that he sought medical treatment until he was seen by Dr. Shen on January 18, 2017. Absent a timely objection to Dr. Berg's determination that applicant needed no further medical treatment, and absent any evidence that applicant complied with the Labor Code sections referred to in AD rule 9785(b)(3), quoted above, applicant is not entitled to medical treatment for the August 7, 2008 injury. We also note that since applicant did not seek treatment for approximately eight years after his last treatment by Dr. Berg, there is no evidence that the treatment provided by Lien Claimant was actually for symptoms that were a result of the 2008 injury. Accordingly, we will deny reconsideration.
No timely objection to Dr. Berg's release from care; no evidence applicant complied with Labor Code sections for dispute; no entitlement to further treatment for 2008 injury.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11122688 · 2021-09-24 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Lien claimant contends that as there is no fee schedule in effect for interpreters, the process for Independent Bill Review (IBR) is inapplicable. Defendant relies upon the recent case of Meadowbrook Ins. Co. v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd (2019) 42 Cal App.5th 432 [Cal.Rptr.3d 325, 84 Cal Comp Cases 1033] in opposition to lien claimant's position.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ10625118 · 2021-09-03 · Fresno District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In this case, the WCJ believed the applicant's testimony that he reported his injury to his supervisors, and disbelieved the defendant's witnesses' testimony to the contrary. (Report at p. 4.) A WCJ's credibility determinations are "entitled to great weight." (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) The defendant thus had the duty pursuant to Labor Code section 5401 to give applicant the DWC-1 form containing notice of his workers' compensation rights, and the statute of limitations was tolled until he was given the form or otherwise obtained actual knowledge of his rights. Applicant did not receive notice of his workers' compensation rights until October 11, 2016. Thus, the filing of his Application for Adjudication in the specific injury case on October 27, 2016, less than three weeks after obtaining the required notices, was timely.
The statute of limitations was tolled due to defendant's failure to provide a DWC-1 claim form, and the claim was timely filed after applicant received notice of rights.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10045698 · 2021-09-09 · Stockton District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy if final decision adverse to petitioner issued.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11304983 · 2021-05-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Reconsideration has been sought with regard to the decision filed on March 11, 2021. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision.
Reconsideration granted to allow further study of factual and legal issues and to issue a just and reasoned decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9625221 · 2021-04-13 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on December 17, 2020 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, we will vacate our order granting reconsideration and the Petition will be dismissed. We do not address the merits of the Petition since it has been withdrawn.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Reconsideration, so the Board vacated the order granting reconsideration and dismissed the Petition without addressing the merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13135376 · 2021-04-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal dated January 27, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The petition for removal was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to its dismissal.
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.

MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT
MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC.
MATRIX ABSENCE FOOD MANAGEMENT, INC.
Matrix Absence Management
MATRIX

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.

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 →

Matrix Absence Management

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

4 for the applicant

Counted over 9 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ13614921 · 2026-02-23 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.18Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not believe that the evidence supports the imposition of sanctions against Petronella, and we grant the Petition for Reconsideration and rescind the F&O and grant the Petition for Disqualification and order that the matter be returned to the Presiding WCJ for assignment to a new WCJ.

The Appeals Board found insufficient evidence to support the WCJ's imposition of sanctions against lien representative Patrick Petronella and concluded that the WCJ's actions raised doubts about fairness and due process, warranting disqualification and reassignment.

Official decision · page 18 →

ADJ10767199 · 2022-04-18 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4If the employee disputes a medical determination made by the primary treating physician, including a determination that the employee should be released from care, the dispute shall be resolved under the applicable procedures set forth at Labor Code sections 4060, 4061 4062, 4600.5, 4616.3, or 4616.4.... (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(b)(3).) Here, the record contains no evidence that at any time applicant objected to Dr. Berg's determination that he needed no more medical treatment and was released from care. In the C&R applicant stipulated that he was working his usual and customary duties up to the termination of his employment and the trial record does not include any evidence that he sought medical treatment until he was seen by Dr. Shen on January 18, 2017. Absent a timely objection to Dr. Berg's determination that applicant needed no further medical treatment, and absent any evidence that applicant complied with the Labor Code sections referred to in AD rule 9785(b)(3), quoted above, applicant is not entitled to medical treatment for the August 7, 2008 injury. We also note that since applicant did not seek treatment for approximately eight years after his last treatment by Dr. Berg, there is no evidence that the treatment provided by Lien Claimant was actually for symptoms that were a result of the 2008 injury. Accordingly, we will deny reconsideration.

No timely objection to Dr. Berg's release from care; no evidence applicant complied with Labor Code sections for dispute; no entitlement to further treatment for 2008 injury.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11122688 · 2021-09-24 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Lien claimant contends that as there is no fee schedule in effect for interpreters, the process for Independent Bill Review (IBR) is inapplicable. Defendant relies upon the recent case of Meadowbrook Ins. Co. v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd (2019) 42 Cal App.5th 432 [Cal.Rptr.3d 325, 84 Cal Comp Cases 1033] in opposition to lien claimant's position.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ10625118 · 2021-09-03 · Fresno District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In this case, the WCJ believed the applicant's testimony that he reported his injury to his supervisors, and disbelieved the defendant's witnesses' testimony to the contrary. (Report at p. 4.) A WCJ's credibility determinations are "entitled to great weight." (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) The defendant thus had the duty pursuant to Labor Code section 5401 to give applicant the DWC-1 form containing notice of his workers' compensation rights, and the statute of limitations was tolled until he was given the form or otherwise obtained actual knowledge of his rights. Applicant did not receive notice of his workers' compensation rights until October 11, 2016. Thus, the filing of his Application for Adjudication in the specific injury case on October 27, 2016, less than three weeks after obtaining the required notices, was timely.

The statute of limitations was tolled due to defendant's failure to provide a DWC-1 claim form, and the claim was timely filed after applicant received notice of rights.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10045698 · 2021-09-09 · Stockton District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy if final decision adverse to petitioner issued.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11304983 · 2021-05-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Reconsideration has been sought with regard to the decision filed on March 11, 2021. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision.

Reconsideration granted to allow further study of factual and legal issues and to issue a just and reasoned decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9625221 · 2021-04-13 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on December 17, 2020 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, we will vacate our order granting reconsideration and the Petition will be dismissed. We do not address the merits of the Petition since it has been withdrawn.

Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Reconsideration, so the Board vacated the order granting reconsideration and dismissed the Petition without addressing the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13135376 · 2021-04-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal dated January 27, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

The petition for removal was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to its dismissal.

Official decision · page 1 →