California WCABLaw firm

Accident Defenders

Accident Defenders is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Tobin Lucks (2).

Decisions: 13
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 0
District offices: 4

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 11 of 11 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.

Who they face

5 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

Van Nuys 10
Anaheim 1
Long Beach 1
Santa Barbara 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
2 for the applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ18122323 · 2026-04-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, acting in pro per,1 seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 20, 2024.
The Petition was dismissed as premature because the record was insufficient to determine applicant's understanding of the settlement and adequacy of the settlement. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to treat the Petition as one to set aside the OACR and to develop the record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14590241 · 2026-01-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that discovery is not yet complete. We have received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal. 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 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 petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18590024 · 2026-01-21 · 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 30, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).2
The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17371801 · 2025-10-10 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant 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 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 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, and based upon the analysis below, an order to appear in-person would appear both legally incorrect and would not be reparable if the matter proceeded to reconsideration. Thus, we will grant removal.
The Appeals Board found that the order to appear in-person was legally incorrect and would cause irreparable harm if not removed, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ14649906 · 2025-09-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.11VI. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, as well as the Petition for Removal, and order that a final decision after reconsideration and removal is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. While this matter is pending before the Appeals Board, we encourage the parties to participate in the Appeals Board's voluntary mediation program. Inquiries as to the use of our mediation program can be addressed to WCABmediation@dir.ca.gov.
The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Removal and deferred final decision pending further review.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ17759050 · 2024-09-20 · Van Nuys 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, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16339804 · 2023-03-10 · Santa Barbara 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, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13417761 · 2022-11-17 · Van Nuys 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, § 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 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.
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 →
ADJ14649906 · 2022-11-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the July 7, 2022 Order closing discovery and setting this matter for trial on the case-in-chief.
Applicant demonstrated that proceeding to trial without completion of discovery would cause substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, warranting removal of the order and further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13334020 · 2022-06-06 · Van Nuys 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 reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13814285 · 2022-01-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on November 3, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, as our decision after reconsideration, we vacate our grant of reconsideration and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration..
Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner while pending, leading to vacating the grant of reconsideration and dismissal of the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13354508 · 2021-09-09 · Van Nuys 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.
The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate 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.

ACCIDENT DEFENDERS
ACCIDENT DEFENDERS LAW TARZANA
ACCIDENT DEFENDERS, 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

2 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ18122323 · 2026-04-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, acting in pro per,1 seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 20, 2024.

The Petition was dismissed as premature because the record was insufficient to determine applicant's understanding of the settlement and adequacy of the settlement. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to treat the Petition as one to set aside the OACR and to develop the record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14590241 · 2026-01-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that discovery is not yet complete. We have received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal. 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 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 petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable

The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18590024 · 2026-01-21 · 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 30, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).2

The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17371801 · 2025-10-10 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant 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 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 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, and based upon the analysis below, an order to appear in-person would appear both legally incorrect and would not be reparable if the matter proceeded to reconsideration. Thus, we will grant removal.

The Appeals Board found that the order to appear in-person was legally incorrect and would cause irreparable harm if not removed, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ14649906 · 2025-09-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.11VI. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, as well as the Petition for Removal, and order that a final decision after reconsideration and removal is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. While this matter is pending before the Appeals Board, we encourage the parties to participate in the Appeals Board's voluntary mediation program. Inquiries as to the use of our mediation program can be addressed to WCABmediation@dir.ca.gov.

The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Removal and deferred final decision pending further review.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ17759050 · 2024-09-20 · Van Nuys 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, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16339804 · 2023-03-10 · Santa Barbara 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, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13417761 · 2022-11-17 · Van Nuys 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, § 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 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.

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 →

ADJ14649906 · 2022-11-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the July 7, 2022 Order closing discovery and setting this matter for trial on the case-in-chief.

Applicant demonstrated that proceeding to trial without completion of discovery would cause substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, warranting removal of the order and further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13334020 · 2022-06-06 · Van Nuys 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 reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13814285 · 2022-01-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on November 3, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, as our decision after reconsideration, we vacate our grant of reconsideration and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration..

Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner while pending, leading to vacating the grant of reconsideration and dismissal of the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13354508 · 2021-09-09 · Van Nuys 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.

The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate 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 →