Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 7
• Santa Ana 6
• Pomona 5
• San Diego 5
• Anaheim 4
• Marina del Rey 4
• Sacramento 4
• San Francisco 4
• Van Nuys 4
• Oxnard 3
• Riverside 3
• Oakland 2

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.

• 32 for the defense
• 19 for the applicant
• 9 returned for more record

Counted over 57 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.

• ADJ17764448 · 2026-02-13 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1A workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued a Findings and Orders in this matter served on December 15, 2025. In the decision, it was found that applicant's claim that while employed on July 13, 2022, as an HVAC technician, he sustained industrial injury to his neck, back and "body systems, specifically stress and anxiety" was barred by the Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) post-termination defense, which states, in pertinent part:

  The WCJ found the claim barred by the post-termination defense because the employer lacked notice of injury prior to termination; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record and analyze notice of injury under relevant precedent.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16859150 · 2025-08-29 · San Francisco District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Applicant's petition for penalties sought sanctions, penalties and attorneys' fees for the same alleged conduct: namely, defendant's failure to pay temporary disability in this case. Penalties under Labor Code section 5814, which apply when payment that is due is either delayed or denied, are an inducement for prompt payment, while sanctions under our Labor Code section 5813 are "designed to protect against litigation abuses, not to remedy or penalize delayed payments of awards." (Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appl. Bd, (2008) 73 Cal. Comp. Cases 1197, 1202.) Bad faith actions or tactics "include actions or tactics that result from a willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation," disrupt or delay proceedings, or that "are done for an improper motive or are indisputably without merit." (Title 8, Cal. Code Reg. section 10421(b).) Applicant has presented no evidence that would support a finding of sanctions.

  Applicant did not present evidence of bad faith or willful failure to comply by defendant to support sanctions or attorneys' fees. WCJ's discretion to deny sanctions and fees was not abused.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ19297551 · 2025-08-11 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Lastly, section 4605 provides: Nothing contained in this chapter shall limit the right of the employee to provide, at his or her own expense, a consulting physician or any attending physicians whom he or she desires. Any report prepared by consulting or attending physicians pursuant to this section shall not be the sole basis of an award of compensation. A qualified medical evaluator or authorized treating physician shall address any report procured pursuant to this section and shall indicate whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the findings or opinions stated in the report, and shall identify the bases for this opinion. (Lab. Code, § 4605.) Here, we have concluded that Dr. Tarin's medical report is relevant to the issue and must be provided to Dr. Bressler under section 4062.3(a)(2). We note that the application of section 4605 is more significant in the context of whether reporting by a consulting physician may be the basis for an award. Here the issue is causation, not permanent disability, but we observe that the language of section 4605 also supports a conclusion that the QME should review the reporting. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition, rescind the WCJ's May 9, 2025 F&O, and issue a new decision ordering that Dr. Tarin's report be provided to QME Dr. Bressler.

  The Appeals Board found that Dr. Tarin's pathology report is relevant and must be provided to the QME under Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2), rejecting the WCJ's exclusion based on AD Rule 35(e) and WCAB Rule 10682(b).

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ17550375 · 2025-07-29 · Lodi District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2As to the merits of whether temporary disability is due, and per the WCJ's Report: Applicant is a 68 year old iron workers' union member who was assigned work out of a union hall. He sustained an admitted injury to his low back on March 20, 2023, while employed at Live Action General Engineering. The injury was originally denied. After exhausting one year of state disability benefits the applicant elected to take his union retirement. Applicant understood that if he returned to work after accepting retirement, he would lose his retirement benefit.

  The applicant was found temporarily partially disabled from March 30, 2023, through the date of trial, with the employer estopped from asserting the modified work offer bars temporary disability due to defendant's conduct and a medical conflict in the work restrictions invalidating the offer.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ17669984 · 2024-12-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The WCJ's focus on the reasonableness of the conduct of applicant's representative in scheduling an interpreter for the MSC is misplaced. Appearance at the MSC was required, and when an applicant requires an interpreter so that the applicant may meaningfully participate, the interpreter is necessary, and a diligent representative should ensure that an interpreter is available. As stated above, section 5811 and AD Rules 9797.3 and 9795.4 provide the framework for consideration of payment to interpreters who appear for WCAB proceedings, and it is reasonably contemplated that even if the interpreter does not actually provide services, the interpreter is still entitled to payment. Here, defendant could have avoided liability for payment to the interpreter by making sure ahead of time that the MSC was taken off calendar. It did not.

  The WCAB found that the defendant failed to ensure the MSC was taken off calendar after venue change, making the interpreter services necessary and the defendant liable for payment. The WCJ's prior focus on the applicant's representative's conduct was misplaced because the interpreter was required for meaningful participation.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17646368 · 2024-12-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11This appears to be a finger injury case with minimal residual orthopedic disability after corrective surgery, with the possibility of some other issues as a result of the injury and/or medication. The Court notes that this is not yet a question of additional panels, but of the initial panel, and it appears that Applicant met the procedural requirements for selection of the initial panel specialty.

  The court found insufficient evidence to find the selected gastroenterology specialty inappropriate and denied the request for a replacement QME panel.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ15462224 · 2024-10-29 · Anaheim District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5On December 8, 2022, Medland Medical filed a lien on behalf of Dr. Haghighinia. On July 11, 2024, lien claimant and defendant proceeded to trial. The issues in dispute were: 1. Parts of the body injured: Lumbar spine, neck, left wrist, left hand, left knee, left index and middle fingers;

  The WCAB found that the lien claimant met the burden to show a contested claim existed and that the medical-legal report by Dr. Haghighinia was relevant to proving the cumulative injury claim. The WCAB also found that the issue of whether the medical-legal expenses and treatment were reasonable and necessary must be considered by the WCJ in the first instance. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16808800 · 2024-01-11 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The applicant has an accepted bilateral knee injury which occurred on 9-3-2022 while squatting and hearing a pop in both knees. He squatted down as he was holding a case of store product at the Dollar General Store in Ceres California.

  Applicant was entitled to temporary disability benefits from 2-6-2023 onward because employer failed to offer modified work and applicant was forced to quit due to harassment and worsening condition.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15343213 · 2023-11-15 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 28, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant was not entitled to a new Panel Qualified Medical Examiner list.

  The WCJ properly applied the removal standard for interlocutory discovery issues and found no entitlement to a new Panel QME list; the WCAB panel agreed and affirmed this finding.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15383863 · 2023-10-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant contends that the opinions of orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Ramy Elias, M.D., as stated in his January 23, 2023 report, are substantial evidence that 80% of applicant's right knee permanent partial disability is the result of pre-existing degenerative changes, and based thereon applicant is entitled to an award of 2% permanent partial disability, after apportionment.

  Dr. Elias's opinion on 80% apportionment to preexisting degenerative changes was not substantial evidence because he failed to explain the nature and impact of the degenerative disease, so defendant did not meet burden of proof for apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12475830 · 2023-09-11 · Stockton District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration to further study the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant.1 This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.

  The WCJ found good cause to reinstate the claim due to the applicant's credible testimony about being ignored by prior counsel, the impact of the Covid pandemic on medical appointments, and the invalidity of the dismissal order containing self-destruct clauses. The WCAB panel affirmed this finding.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7263865 · 2023-07-11 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 18, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that while employed by defendant during the period from August 28, 2001, through March 25, 2010, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his heart, upper extremities, spine, and lower extremities; and that the injury caused 100% permanent disability.

  The Appeals Board found that the vocational experts' reports were not substantial evidence for apportionment and that the medical experts' opinions on apportionment were not reviewed with vocational reports, leading to insufficient evidence on disability caused by the industrial injury.

  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 13.

• DIETZ, GILMOR & CHAZEN
• DIETZ, GILMOR & CHAZEN, APC
• Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen
• DIETZ GILMOR
• DIETZ GILMOR & CHAZEN
• DIETZ, GILMOR & CHAZEN APC
• Dietz Gilmor & Chazen
• DIETZ, GILMOR & CHAZEN, A.P.C.
• Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen, APC
• DIETZ GILMOR & CHAZEN APC
• DIETZ, GILMOR & CHAZAN
• Dietz Gilmor & Chasen

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.