Copperpoint Legal

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Anaheim 2
• Marina del Rey 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 5 for the defense

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ21267547 · 2026-06-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On March 23, 2026, defendant timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration. On April 15, 2026, the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation (Report), recommending that we deny the Petition for Reconsideration. The WCJ did not set a hearing to address whether the Compromise & Release (C&R) should be set aside. On April 29, 2026, the parties submitted an amended C&R. On May 4, 2026, the WCJ issued an amended OACR. Turning first to the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration, we note that as observed by the WCJ, there was no evidentiary record with respect to the allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration. Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.)

  The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ erred by recommending denial without creating an evidentiary record and by issuing an amended order while the matter was pending before the Appeals Board, violating procedural rules.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20340059 · 2026-03-26 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that the matter is ready to proceed to trial. We have not received an Answer from defendants. 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 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 adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17568026 · 2026-01-21 · Anaheim 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

  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 a final adverse decision is issued. Defendant also failed to timely file a petition for disqualification with required affidavit under penalty of perjury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19674146 · 2026-01-08 · 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 8, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis and the Appeals Board's review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18291313 · 2025-02-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal filed on August 21, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.

  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.

• COPPERPOINT LEGAL
• Copperpoint Legal

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.