California WCABLaw firm

Barkhordarian Law Firm

Barkhordarian Law Firm is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (4), QME/AME process (2) and Apportionment (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Woolford & Associates (2).

Decisions: 11
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 10 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

4 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 11

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.

5 for the defense
4 returned for more record
2 for the applicant

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ18784544 · 2025-08-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Thus, we are unable to determine if good cause exists at this juncture due to a lack of an adequate record. Therefore, we must rescind the Order and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. However, we note that since applicant claims injury to body parts outside the field of orthopedic medicine, it appears that additional QME panels will likely be required to fully address the claimed injury.
The WCJ failed to issue a Notice of Intention and did not make an adequate record to support the order for additional QME panels, violating due process and regulatory requirements.
Official decision · page 6 →
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 →
ADJ10981243 · 2025-01-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.42. Whether the apportionment indicated by AME Dr. Hirsch as to hypertension constitutes substantial medical evidence.
The WCJ found the apportionment evidence for hypertension failed to meet defendant's burden, but the WCAB granted reconsideration to further develop the record on apportionment.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11076763 · 2024-09-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred
Determinative passage · p.9(1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories or examinations, on incorrect legal theories, or on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93] (italics added); Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].) Following development of the record, the parties may wish to specifically frame and submit the issue of the substantiality of the reporting, including the reporting in the field of rheumatology.
The Appeals Board deferred the issue of fibromyalgia rating and compensability for further development of the record, noting the need to assess substantiality of medical evidence.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ13738554 · 2024-05-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.5Here, the record reveals that QME Dr. Rapoff reviewed diagnostic studies, including an MRI, that showed that applicant has "a bona fide left shoulder and left knee condition... [i.e.,] pre-existing, degenerative changes in the left shoulder and left knee which can cause pain." (Ex. B, Report of QME Dr. Rapoff, April 13, 2023, p. 58.) Notwithstanding this record, QME Dr. Rapoff's reporting offers no opinion as to whether applicant's April 20, 2019 accident lit up her preexisting left shoulder and left knee conditions and caused her to sustain industrial injury. Nor does the reporting offer an explanation or rationale for failing to address the issue. Notably, QME Dr. Rapoff's conclusion that applicant's descriptions of the extent of her claimed injury lack credibility does not negate the question of whether applicant in fact sustained injury in the first instance. We therefore conclude that the record should be further developed on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to the left shoulder and knee.
The WCAB found that the record was undeveloped on whether the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the left shoulder and knee, as the QME report did not address whether the April 20, 2019 accident aggravated preexisting conditions; thus, the matter was remanded for further development.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14413931 · 2021-10-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Defendant sent applicant a delay letter on April 23, 2021 stating that her claim was on delay pending, among other items, a "med-legal examination." Defendant's delay letter thus expressly stated that a medical-legal evaluation was necessary in order to make a decision regarding her claim. Applicant waited the requisite time from mailing of defendant's delay letter before requesting a QME panel from the Medical Unit on May 19, 2021. She therefore properly obtained a QME panel in accordance with sections 4060 and 4062.2.
The Appeals Board found that applicant properly obtained the QME panel in accordance with Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2, relying on the delay letter as a valid basis for requesting the panel and rejecting the WCJ's contrary finding. The Board also found no evidence that the specialty chosen (chiropractic) was medically inappropriate, and defendant failed to request a replacement panel specialty.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ13150222 · 2021-10-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 22, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ took the matter off calendar on the basis that expedited hearings are limited to claims with one or more accepted body parts.
The WCAB panel found that the WCJ's denial of an expedited hearing based on the absence of an admitted body part was invalid under Labor Code section 5502, and that the matter should be returned to the trial level for further proceedings with a complete evidentiary record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15734313 · 2024-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) 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.
The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and that the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal. The WCJ's findings and report were relied upon to deny the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10960924 · 2023-10-23 · Van Nuys 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The petition failed to cite specific evidence and was contrary to the substantial evidence in the record, including medical opinions from QME Dr. Anderson and Dr. Nguyen, which did not support fibromyalgia or industrial aggravation of diabetes and hypertension.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13268383 · 2021-09-16 · 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 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 →
ADJ12146064 · 2021-05-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the Arbitrator issued the decision on November 23, 2020, serving it by mail on applicant and applicant's counsel, Barkhordarian Law Firm. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, December 18, 2020 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is dated December 21, 2020. A proof of service shows that the Petition for Reconsideration was mailed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on December 21, 2020 and it was filed in EAMS on January 5, 2021. Accordingly, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and will be dismissed.
The petition for reconsideration was not filed within the 25-day statutory period following service of the Arbitrator's decision, and the time limit is jurisdictional.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM
Barkhordarian Law Firm
BARKHORDARIAN LAW

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 →

Barkhordarian Law Firm

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

4 returned for more record

2 for the applicant

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ18784544 · 2025-08-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

Determinative passage · p.6Thus, we are unable to determine if good cause exists at this juncture due to a lack of an adequate record. Therefore, we must rescind the Order and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. However, we note that since applicant claims injury to body parts outside the field of orthopedic medicine, it appears that additional QME panels will likely be required to fully address the claimed injury.

The WCJ failed to issue a Notice of Intention and did not make an adequate record to support the order for additional QME panels, violating due process and regulatory requirements.

Official decision · page 6 →

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 →

ADJ10981243 · 2025-01-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded

Determinative passage · p.42. Whether the apportionment indicated by AME Dr. Hirsch as to hypertension constitutes substantial medical evidence.

The WCJ found the apportionment evidence for hypertension failed to meet defendant's burden, but the WCAB granted reconsideration to further develop the record on apportionment.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11076763 · 2024-09-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

Determinative passage · p.9(1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories or examinations, on incorrect legal theories, or on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93] (italics added); Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].) Following development of the record, the parties may wish to specifically frame and submit the issue of the substantiality of the reporting, including the reporting in the field of rheumatology.

The Appeals Board deferred the issue of fibromyalgia rating and compensability for further development of the record, noting the need to assess substantiality of medical evidence.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ13738554 · 2024-05-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.5Here, the record reveals that QME Dr. Rapoff reviewed diagnostic studies, including an MRI, that showed that applicant has "a bona fide left shoulder and left knee condition... [i.e.,] pre-existing, degenerative changes in the left shoulder and left knee which can cause pain." (Ex. B, Report of QME Dr. Rapoff, April 13, 2023, p. 58.) Notwithstanding this record, QME Dr. Rapoff's reporting offers no opinion as to whether applicant's April 20, 2019 accident lit up her preexisting left shoulder and left knee conditions and caused her to sustain industrial injury. Nor does the reporting offer an explanation or rationale for failing to address the issue. Notably, QME Dr. Rapoff's conclusion that applicant's descriptions of the extent of her claimed injury lack credibility does not negate the question of whether applicant in fact sustained injury in the first instance. We therefore conclude that the record should be further developed on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to the left shoulder and knee.

The WCAB found that the record was undeveloped on whether the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the left shoulder and knee, as the QME report did not address whether the April 20, 2019 accident aggravated preexisting conditions; thus, the matter was remanded for further development.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14413931 · 2021-10-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Defendant sent applicant a delay letter on April 23, 2021 stating that her claim was on delay pending, among other items, a "med-legal examination." Defendant's delay letter thus expressly stated that a medical-legal evaluation was necessary in order to make a decision regarding her claim. Applicant waited the requisite time from mailing of defendant's delay letter before requesting a QME panel from the Medical Unit on May 19, 2021. She therefore properly obtained a QME panel in accordance with sections 4060 and 4062.2.

The Appeals Board found that applicant properly obtained the QME panel in accordance with Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2, relying on the delay letter as a valid basis for requesting the panel and rejecting the WCJ's contrary finding. The Board also found no evidence that the specialty chosen (chiropractic) was medically inappropriate, and defendant failed to request a replacement panel specialty.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ13150222 · 2021-10-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 22, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ took the matter off calendar on the basis that expedited hearings are limited to claims with one or more accepted body parts.

The WCAB panel found that the WCJ's denial of an expedited hearing based on the absence of an admitted body part was invalid under Labor Code section 5502, and that the matter should be returned to the trial level for further proceedings with a complete evidentiary record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15734313 · 2024-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) 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.

The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and that the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal. The WCJ's findings and report were relied upon to deny the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10960924 · 2023-10-23 · Van Nuys 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

The petition failed to cite specific evidence and was contrary to the substantial evidence in the record, including medical opinions from QME Dr. Anderson and Dr. Nguyen, which did not support fibromyalgia or industrial aggravation of diabetes and hypertension.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13268383 · 2021-09-16 · 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 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 →

ADJ12146064 · 2021-05-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the Arbitrator issued the decision on November 23, 2020, serving it by mail on applicant and applicant's counsel, Barkhordarian Law Firm. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, December 18, 2020 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is dated December 21, 2020. A proof of service shows that the Petition for Reconsideration was mailed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on December 21, 2020 and it was filed in EAMS on January 5, 2021. Accordingly, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and will be dismissed.

The petition for reconsideration was not filed within the 25-day statutory period following service of the Arbitrator's decision, and the time limit is jurisdictional.

Official decision · page 2 →