DJG Law Group

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 5
• Anaheim 4
• Sacramento 3
• Marina del Rey 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Long Beach 1
• Oxnard 1
• Pomona 1
• San Bernardino 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 10 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 20 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.

• ADJ13930082 · 2026-03-06 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, we are unable to conduct meaningful review of the petition or render a decision until we have received a complete record including stipulations, issues and exhibits appropriately identified including the offering party. Thus, this is not a final decision on the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration, and once a final decision is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to sections 5950 et seq.

  The Appeals Board could not conduct meaningful review because the record lacked required documents, including stipulations, issues, and exhibits appropriately identified.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12047380 · 2024-11-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of April 20, 2021, the workers' compensation judge ("WCJ") found that applicant was employed by "Baron HR," and not by "Trion Solutions," in connection with applicant's claims that he sustained industrial injury to various body parts on February 22, 2019 (ADJ12047380) and during the period January 6, 2014 through February 22, 2019 (ADJ12048111). The WCJ also found that there was general-special employer relationship between "Baron HR LLC" as the general employer and "O'Tasty Food, Inc." allegedly insured by Falls Lake Insurance, administered by Sedgwick - as the special employer. In addition, the WCJ disallowed admission of Exhibits B and G into evidence, and the WCJ ordered Falls Lake Insurance ("Falls Lake"), the alleged insurer of special employer "O'Tasty Food, Inc.," to administer applicant's claims of injury.

  The WCJ's findings on employment and administration were incomplete, inconsistent, and included issues not raised at trial, raising due process concerns. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings to clarify the employment relationship and administration issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17141277 · 2024-01-31 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Based on our review of the record, it appears that the parties engaged in proper discovery procedures regarding both injury claims until defendant received the report from QME Dr. Esfahane stating that the June 13, 2022 dog bite did not cause applicant's June 20, 2022 stroke. (Def. Exh. F, p. 15.) Defendant then canceled the scheduled neurological examination by QME Dr. Maasumi. Without addressing the issue of whether defendant's conduct was appropriate, it must be noted that Dr. Esfahane specifically stated he was not provided any medical records and/or test reports to review.(Def. Exh. F, p. 12.) Thus, his report is not substantial evidence. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Also, there is no evidence in the record indicating that a neurological examination/report would not enable the WCJ to determine whether applicant's employment was a cause of applicant's stroke.

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the neurological QME evaluation being conducted, and that the QME report from Dr. Esfahane was not substantial evidence because he lacked medical records to review. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the neurology QME evaluation.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11626536 · 2024-01-02 · Santa Ana District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5However, these contentions as asserted in Defendant's petition for reconsideration were not raised as issues to be addressed during the trial. In furtherance of judicial economy, an issue not raised at trial is considered waived. Ingram Micro v WCAB (Ordonez), 64 CCC 100 (1998).

  The petition for reconsideration was denied because the issue of non-compliance with Labor Code sections 4903.05 and 4903.8 was not raised at trial and thus waived.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ7965556 · 2022-09-28 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The statutory and regulatory duties of a WCJ include the issuance of a decision that complies with Labor Code section 5313. An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision and the WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [2001 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Bd. en banc)4 (Hamilton).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at 475.) The purpose of this requirement is to enable "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [to] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]" (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).)

  Due process requires a complete record and opportunity for hearing; absence of evidentiary record prevented evaluation of WCJ's orders, so orders were rescinded and matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12981125 · 2022-04-12 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Applicant further contends that the Amended Award should include an award for further medical treatment to the body parts found to be industrial in the July 21, 2021 Findings of Fact. (Petition, at 6:15.) The WCJ's Report responds that the issue raised by the parties for trial was whether applicant was entitled to medical treatment if the psychiatric injury did not meet the "sudden and extraordinary" exception to the 6-month employment rule of section 3208.3(d). However, because the Findings of Fact established that applicant's injury was sudden and extraordinary, and the psychiatric injury was compensable, the issue was rendered moot. While we agree with the WCJ's analysis of the issue under section 3208.3(d), we also observe that there is no dispute that applicant sustained injury to the right eye, hearing, and psyche, and that the record demonstrates the need for medical treatment to cure or relieve from the injury. (July 21, 2021 Findings of Fact, Finding No.

  The psychiatric injury was compensable and sudden and extraordinary; medical treatment was found necessary and included in the amended award.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11714452 · 2022-03-21 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3consideration appears to be whether the alleged special employer exercises control over the details of [an employee's] work. Such control strongly supports the inference that a special employment exists.' (McFarland v. Voorheis-Trindle Co., supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 705; Oxford v. Signal Oil & Gas Co., supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at p. 408; Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 922.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we agree that both Baron HR and Source Logistics had the right to control applicant and exercised that control and that they both benefited from the arrangement. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)

  The WCJ's findings that both Baron HR and Source Logistics exercised control over the applicant and benefited from the employment arrangement were given great weight and supported by credible testimony and evidence, establishing a joint general and special employment relationship.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13930082 · 2026-05-04 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration on March 6, 2026, and issued a Notice of Intention (NIT) to rescind the decision of the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) in this matter due to lack of a complete record.

  The petition was granted because the record was incomplete, preventing meaningful review and due process, requiring rescission and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18331703 · 2025-12-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on November 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  The WCAB panel found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying removal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11905907 · 2024-10-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.

  The WCJ's discovery order is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration is dismissed; removal is denied as petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16064041 · 2024-06-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the WCJ's alleged conduct at trial. Applicant argues that the WCJ has formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action and that the WCJ evinced enmity against or bias toward applicant.

  The WCJ issued an unqualified opinion on the merits before submission, creating an appearance of prejudgment, warranting disqualification under CCP 641(f) and WCAB Rule 10960.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12647804 · 2024-02-09 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On November 16, 2023, defendant filed a Petition for Removal regarding the October 18, 2023 Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) referring this matter to arbitration. It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that the parties have reached a proposed settlement. Due to this development, it appears the Petition for Removal is moot and will be dismissed.

  The Petition for Removal became moot due to the parties reaching a proposed settlement, leading to dismissal.

  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.

• DJG LAW GROUP
• DJG Law Group
• DJG LAW GROUP, INC.

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.