Coleman, Chavez & Associates

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 11
• Oakland 8
• Sacramento 8
• San Francisco 8
• Fresno 7
• Santa Rosa 5
• Bakersfield 4
• Los Angeles 4
• Marina del Rey 4
• Riverside 4
• Eureka 3
• Oxnard 3

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.

• 43 for the defense
• 24 for the applicant
• 11 returned for more record

Counted over 75 appealed decisions. Not this firm’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 firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ292246 · 2026-07-01 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Under California's workers' compensation system, questions relating to the medical necessity of a treatment requested by a physician are decided through a compulsory UR process. Section 4610 requires that employers establish a UR process and once a treating physician submits an RFA to an employer, the employer must either approve the treatment request or dispute the treatment request and submit the matter for review by a UR physician who then must determine, based on "medical necessity," whether to approve, modify, or deny the requested treatment. (§ 4610; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sandhagen) (2008) 44 Cal.4th 230, 241.)

  The WCAB concluded that the request for a motorized wheelchair is a new and different treatment subject to utilization review, so the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to decide its medical necessity at this time.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ19403295 · 2026-06-08 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, the record is not fully developed and the WCJ's decision was not based on substantial evidence. We grant KForce's Petition as one seeking reconsideration, rescind the March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The WCJ's March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact on date of injury and statute of limitations were rescinded due to insufficient substantial evidence and incomplete record development.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ20105844 · 2026-03-13 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on January 5, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the Appeals Board did not have jurisdiction to act upon the disbursement of funds from a third-party settlement check.

  The Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction over the third party or the disbursement of third-party settlement funds absent an agreement approved by the WCAB; the issue of credit for third-party settlement funds is within WCAB jurisdiction and was deferred by the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19551252 · 2026-02-27 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, we do not find that the WCJ abused her discretion in finding that defendant is not entitled to a credit for temporary disability indemnity paid from June 27, 2025 through July 25, 2025. Panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Sayed Miry, D.C., re-evaluated the applicant on June 27, 2025 and found him permanent and stationary as of the date of the re-evaluation. (Joint Exhibit #1, Report of QME Sayed Miry D.C., June 27, 2025, at p. 44.) However, the report, through no fault of any party, was not served onto the parties until July 15, 2025. In addition, the claims administrator, Sedgwick, was served at an out-of-state address in Lexington, Kentucky, which may have possibly further delayed action by defendant. The applicant continued to receive temporary disability payments after the re-evaluation with the QME and had no reason to believe he was not entitled to them.

  The defendant did not meet its burden of proof to establish entitlement to credit for overpayment due to delay in service of the QME report and lack of a petition for credit, and the applicant was not at fault for receiving payments in good faith.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12655039 · 2026-02-20 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of November 25, 2025, wherein it was found that while employed on August 7, 2019 as a maintenance technician, applicant sustained industrial injury to the right hand, right arm, and psyche, causing permanent total (100%) disability. In finding permanent total disability, the WCJ relied on the reporting of vocational expert Paul Broadus, who opined that applicant's industrial injury precluded applicant from vocational rehabilitation or from employment in the open labor market.

  The WCJ's finding of permanent total disability was not supported by substantial evidence because the vocational expert's opinion went beyond the medical work restrictions and included unsupported work preclusions; the record needed further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19126786 · 2026-01-20 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5INTRODUCTION By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on August 22, 20251, defendant seeks reconsideration of my July 31, 2025 Joint Findings, Award and Order, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed1 on September 30, 2016 (ADJ19126786) as an office assistant/secretary (Occupational Group 211) at San Jose, California, by Mobile Home Communities of America, Incorporated, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine, but did not sustain injury to the bilateral ankles, causing permanent disability of 59% after apportionment. I also found that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma to the same body partes during the cumulative trauma period ending on September 30, 3016 in ADJ19126787. In reaching my decision, I relied on the report of one of the Qualified Medical Examiners in this case, Dr. Rabeah Emanour, whose opinion I found mor persuasive and logical than the other QME in these cases. Dr. Eric Carlblom.

  The WCJ found the opinion of Dr. Emampour more persuasive and logical than Dr. Carlblom's, supporting a 59% permanent disability rating after apportionment. The Appeals Board agreed, finding Dr. Emampour's opinion substantial evidence and denying the defendant's petition to reduce the rating or admit a supplemental report.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11008409 · 2025-12-09 · Sacramento District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Based on our review, we agree with the WCJ that the record contains substantial medical evidence that applicant sustained a cumulative injury AOE/COE to his right foot/ankle, left foot/ankle, lumbar spine, right hip and left hip. However, October 13, 2020, when both parties had knowledge that there was substantial medical evidence of cumulative injury, is the proper date of injury pursuant to section 5412, and whether the statute of limitations had elapsed pursuant to section 5405(a) is based on that date of injury. Defendant is mistaken where it contends that only applicant had knowledge on that date. Applicant proved defendant had knowledge of his injury based on the reporting of Dr. McGahan addressed to both parties as early as October 13, 2020 or as late as May 26, 2021, when defendant deposed Dr. McGahan, either event being sufficient to trigger defendant's duty of notification, thereby tolling the statute of limitations. (See Exhibits 3 and 9.) There is no evidence in the record that defendant met its duty of notification to applicant. Thus, we also agree with the WCJ that defendant did not meet its burden, and applicant's injury claim is not barred by the statute of limitations defense.

  The Appeals Board found that the proper date of injury under section 5412 is October 13, 2020, when both parties had knowledge of the cumulative injury, and that defendant failed to meet its duty to notify applicant, tolling the statute of limitations and preventing the claim from being barred.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9477887 · 2025-10-29 · Oakland District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5A. There was No Timely Appeal of the Findings and Award of 03-30- 2020 Barring Additional Permanent Disability for Psychiatric Injury under Labor Code section 4660.1

  Applicant's psychiatric permanent disability is barred from add-on disability under Labor Code section 4660.1(c) as the injury was not catastrophic or due to a violent act; prior final finding on this issue is binding and applicant did not appeal it.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12975722 · 2025-09-05 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the May 15, 2025 Joint Findings and Award (F&A) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained new and further disability to the right hip, hypertension, and diabetes as a result of a cumulative injury during the period from May 13, 2015 through May 13, 2016 (ADJ12975722) which resulted in an increase in permanent disability from 57% to 70%. (F&A, p. 2.) The WCJ also found that applicant sustained a new injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on February 4, 2020 (ADJ10528292) to the right shoulder resulting in a separate 28% permanent disability.

  The WCJ's reliance on Dr. Heskiaoff's medical opinion was upheld as substantial evidence, and the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to apportion increased impairment for hypertension and diabetes to the new injury rather than the cumulative injury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16909714 · 2025-04-25 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8II. Defendant first contends that the WCJ erroneously failed to consolidate case number ADJ16909714 with case number ADJ20101471, which was filed by defendant. As stated in the Report, the record lacks evidence that applicant has been employed by the entity against which defendant asserted the claim in ADJ20101471 or was injured at any time after January 13, 2018. It follows that the record is without grounds for consolidation of the cases. Defendant next contends that the WCJ erroneously found that applicant sustained injury to the cervical spine resulting in permanent disability of 18%. As stated in the Report, PQME Dr. Ryan adequately explained the grounds on which she found that applicant sustained a fracture of the C-6 vertebrae injury and rated the resulting disability. It follows that the argument that the record lacked substantial medical evidence to support the finding that applicant sustained injury to the cervical spine is without merit. Defendant next contends that the WCJ erroneously declined to admit exhibits in evidence. As stated in the Report, defendant failed to timely file exhibits for trial and failed to establish grounds for applicant's deposition transcript to be admitted in evidence notwithstanding that he appeared as a witness at trial.

  Defendant failed to timely file exhibits and did not establish grounds for admission, so the WCJ did not err in declining to admit them.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ16528931 · 2025-04-25 · Sacramento District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9First, the factor must be an "event"; i.e., it must be "something that takes place" (American Heritage Dict. (4th ed. 2000) p. 616) in the employment relationship. Second, the event must be "of employment"; i.e., it must arise out of an employee's working relationship with his or her employer. (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bryan) (2004) 114 Cal. App. 4th 1174, 1181 [8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467, 69 Cal. Comp. Cases 21]; see also Verga v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 174, 186 [73 Cal. Comp. Cases 63] [actual events of employment "'can be interpreted' as requiring the employee to establish 'objective evidence of harassment, persecution, or other basis for the alleged psychiatric injury'."].)

  The medical evidence, including the PQME report of Dr. Mackin, established by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant sustained a psychiatric injury predominantly caused by work-related traumatic exposures, resulting in temporary disability and need for medical treatment.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ19352869 · 2024-12-30 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 4, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel number 7705175 is valid.

  The WCJ's finding that the QME panel number 7705175 is valid was not an abuse of discretion; service of the delay notice on applicant rather than her attorney was proper and did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm; reconsideration was an adequate remedy; therefore, removal was denied and reconsideration petition was denied.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 19.

• COLEMAN CHAVEZ & ASSOCIATES
• COLEMAN CHAVEZ & ASSOCIATES LLP
• COLEMAN, CHAVEZ & ASSOCIATES
• COLEMAN CHAVEZ
• Coleman, Chavez & Associates
• Coleman Chavez & Associates
• COLEMAN CHAVEZ & ASSOCIATES, LLP
• Coleman Chavez & Associates LLP
• Coleman Chavez Law Firm
• Coleman, Chavez & Associates, LLP
• COLEMAN, CHAVEZ & ASSOCIATES, LLP
• COLEMAN CHAVEZ & ASSICIATES LLP

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.