California WCABLaw firm

Burgis and Associates

Burgis and Associates is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (2), Apportionment (1) and Death benefits (1). They were heard most often at Pomona, then Marina del Rey. The firm it meets most often is Black and Rose (1).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 4

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 of 8 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

Pomona 4
Marina del Rey 3
Van Nuys 2
Los Angeles 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.

6 for the defense
4 for the applicant

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ11754124 · 2026-05-26 · Pomona District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on February 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant's internal injury complaints are barred by Labor Code1 section 5410 because applicant failed to obtain substantial medical evidence establishing internal injury within five years from his date of injury.
The WCJ's finding that applicant's internal injury complaints were barred by Labor Code section 5410 was unsupported due to lack of substantial medical evidence; applicant timely filed petition to reopen; record development needed; thus, reconsideration granted and matter remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8545914 · 2024-08-09 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8but defendant failed to prove that the current disabilities overlapped. There being no persuasive evidence reporting apportionment in accordance with the correct principles, applicant is entitled to an unapportioned award.
Defendant failed to prove overlap between current and prior disabilities to justify apportionment; applicant entitled to unapportioned 100% permanent disability award.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ9694061 · 2024-01-23 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3On July 19, 2022, the Court of Appeal denied applicant's Petition for Writ of Review. On August 14, 2023, the parties proceeded to trial and offered additional reporting into evidence. Applicant withdrew her claim of injury to the right knee. (Minutes of Hearing (Further), dated August 14, 2023, at p. 2:1.) The parties submitted the matter for decision. (Id. at p. 1:22.) On November 2, 2023, the WCJ issued the F&O, ordering in relevant part that the August 14, 2023 submission be vacated, and directing the orthopedic AME to "write a supplemental report with a complete Benson analysis which includes the right hand/wrist and assesses apportionment to each separate date of injury." (F&O, Finding of Fact No. 2.) Applicant's November 27, 2023 Petition for Removal (Petition) avers the WCJ's F&O will result in significant prejudice and irreparable harm, and that the finding of no industrial injury to the right knee is unsupported in the record. (Petition, at p. 1:23.) The WCJ's Report observes that the decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on an accurate and fully developed evidentiary record, and that following further reflection on the issues raised by applicant, the WCJ recommends the Petition be granted.
The WCJ ordered further development of the record for apportionment, but the WCAB found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish apportionment, and further development would cause irreparable harm to the applicant. Therefore, the WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for decision on the current record.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12008723 · 2022-08-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5First, the death certificate states the cause of death, and that is the starting point in order to determine causation. Dr. Borsada opines (to be more fully discussed below) that hypertension is a contributing factor towards arteriosclerosis, the condition that caused the applicant' death. The doctor then discusses the stressors that can lead to an aggravation of hypertension. After reviewing the evidence presented, the doctor concludes that the decedent's stressors at work aggravated his hypertension and his atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that caused his death.
The Board found substantial medical evidence based on reasonable medical probability that the decedent's job duties contributed to his death, supported by the PQME's opinion and circumstantial evidence, and rejected the defendant's arguments against industrial causation.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ3065118 · 2021-10-26 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Amended Joint Findings and Award of September 2, 2021, wherein it was found that, while employed as a cabinet maker on November 12, 1998 (ADJ3065118), applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, mid spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, wrists and psyche, but not in the forms of sleep disorder, sexual dysfunction, hypertension, or gastroesophageal reflux disease, causing compensable permanent disability of 65% and the need for further medical treatment. Additionally, it was found that while employed as a cabinet maker during a cumulative period ending September 12, 2000 (ADJ3683536), applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, and psyche, causing compensable permanent disability of 23% and the need for further medical treatment.
The WCJ relied on 2017 medical reports showing significant permanent disability and need for ongoing treatment, and applicant failed to present credible evidence to overturn these findings after over 20 years.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19111548 · 2026-01-26 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on November 14, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ ordered additional QME panels in internal medicine and psychology.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11754124 · 2025-11-07 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on June 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
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.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14497155 · 2025-10-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2WCAB Rule 10961 then states: After 15 days have elapsed from the filing of a petition for reconsideration, a workers' compensation judge shall not issue any order in the case until the Appeals Board has denied or dismissed the petition for reconsideration or issued a decision after reconsideration. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) Here, the WCJ chose to prepare a Report pursuant to subdivision (a) and transmit ADJ14497155 to the Appeals Board. Nonetheless, in contravention of the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961, the WCJ issued an order approving a compromise and release on February 3, 2023, while the matter was still pending at the Appeals Board. No notice was ever given to the Appeals Board that there was a settlement pending. In particular, applicant's attorneys Vyshnavi Chandrasekaran (CSB #: 256050) and Michael Burgis & Associates, P.C., did not notify the Appeals Board that the Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn. This lack of action by the parties and the WCJ causes delay and wastes the resources of the Appeals Board.
The Petition for Reconsideration became moot because the WCJ issued an order approving compromise and release while the matter was pending at the Appeals Board, which was contrary to the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ17917974 · 2025-04-14 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Order issued on January 9, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) setting this matter for trial.
The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus removal was denied.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9694061 · 2022-01-31 · Marina del Rey 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, 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 on our review of the record, and under the circumstances as set forth in the record before us, 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. Thus, we decline to disturb the WCJ's decision.
The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and determined reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
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.

BURGIS AND ASSOCIATES
BURGIS & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM
Burgis and Associates
BURGIS & ASSOCIATES
BURGIS &ASSOCIATES

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 →

Burgis and Associates

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the defense

4 for the applicant

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ11754124 · 2026-05-26 · Pomona District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on February 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant's internal injury complaints are barred by Labor Code1 section 5410 because applicant failed to obtain substantial medical evidence establishing internal injury within five years from his date of injury.

The WCJ's finding that applicant's internal injury complaints were barred by Labor Code section 5410 was unsupported due to lack of substantial medical evidence; applicant timely filed petition to reopen; record development needed; thus, reconsideration granted and matter remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8545914 · 2024-08-09 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8but defendant failed to prove that the current disabilities overlapped. There being no persuasive evidence reporting apportionment in accordance with the correct principles, applicant is entitled to an unapportioned award.

Defendant failed to prove overlap between current and prior disabilities to justify apportionment; applicant entitled to unapportioned 100% permanent disability award.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ9694061 · 2024-01-23 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3On July 19, 2022, the Court of Appeal denied applicant's Petition for Writ of Review. On August 14, 2023, the parties proceeded to trial and offered additional reporting into evidence. Applicant withdrew her claim of injury to the right knee. (Minutes of Hearing (Further), dated August 14, 2023, at p. 2:1.) The parties submitted the matter for decision. (Id. at p. 1:22.) On November 2, 2023, the WCJ issued the F&O, ordering in relevant part that the August 14, 2023 submission be vacated, and directing the orthopedic AME to "write a supplemental report with a complete Benson analysis which includes the right hand/wrist and assesses apportionment to each separate date of injury." (F&O, Finding of Fact No. 2.) Applicant's November 27, 2023 Petition for Removal (Petition) avers the WCJ's F&O will result in significant prejudice and irreparable harm, and that the finding of no industrial injury to the right knee is unsupported in the record. (Petition, at p. 1:23.) The WCJ's Report observes that the decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on an accurate and fully developed evidentiary record, and that following further reflection on the issues raised by applicant, the WCJ recommends the Petition be granted.

The WCJ ordered further development of the record for apportionment, but the WCAB found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish apportionment, and further development would cause irreparable harm to the applicant. Therefore, the WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for decision on the current record.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12008723 · 2022-08-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5First, the death certificate states the cause of death, and that is the starting point in order to determine causation. Dr. Borsada opines (to be more fully discussed below) that hypertension is a contributing factor towards arteriosclerosis, the condition that caused the applicant' death. The doctor then discusses the stressors that can lead to an aggravation of hypertension. After reviewing the evidence presented, the doctor concludes that the decedent's stressors at work aggravated his hypertension and his atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that caused his death.

The Board found substantial medical evidence based on reasonable medical probability that the decedent's job duties contributed to his death, supported by the PQME's opinion and circumstantial evidence, and rejected the defendant's arguments against industrial causation.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ3065118 · 2021-10-26 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Amended Joint Findings and Award of September 2, 2021, wherein it was found that, while employed as a cabinet maker on November 12, 1998 (ADJ3065118), applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, mid spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, wrists and psyche, but not in the forms of sleep disorder, sexual dysfunction, hypertension, or gastroesophageal reflux disease, causing compensable permanent disability of 65% and the need for further medical treatment. Additionally, it was found that while employed as a cabinet maker during a cumulative period ending September 12, 2000 (ADJ3683536), applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, and psyche, causing compensable permanent disability of 23% and the need for further medical treatment.

The WCJ relied on 2017 medical reports showing significant permanent disability and need for ongoing treatment, and applicant failed to present credible evidence to overturn these findings after over 20 years.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19111548 · 2026-01-26 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on November 14, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ ordered additional QME panels in internal medicine and psychology.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11754124 · 2025-11-07 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on June 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

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.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14497155 · 2025-10-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2WCAB Rule 10961 then states: After 15 days have elapsed from the filing of a petition for reconsideration, a workers' compensation judge shall not issue any order in the case until the Appeals Board has denied or dismissed the petition for reconsideration or issued a decision after reconsideration. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) Here, the WCJ chose to prepare a Report pursuant to subdivision (a) and transmit ADJ14497155 to the Appeals Board. Nonetheless, in contravention of the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961, the WCJ issued an order approving a compromise and release on February 3, 2023, while the matter was still pending at the Appeals Board. No notice was ever given to the Appeals Board that there was a settlement pending. In particular, applicant's attorneys Vyshnavi Chandrasekaran (CSB #: 256050) and Michael Burgis & Associates, P.C., did not notify the Appeals Board that the Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn. This lack of action by the parties and the WCJ causes delay and wastes the resources of the Appeals Board.

The Petition for Reconsideration became moot because the WCJ issued an order approving compromise and release while the matter was pending at the Appeals Board, which was contrary to the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ17917974 · 2025-04-14 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Order issued on January 9, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) setting this matter for trial.

The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus removal was denied.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9694061 · 2022-01-31 · Marina del Rey 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, 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 on our review of the record, and under the circumstances as set forth in the record before us, 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. Thus, we decline to disturb the WCJ's decision.

The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and determined reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 2 →