California WCABLaw firm

Domingo Elias Law Firm

Domingo Elias Law Firm is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (2), AOE/COE (1) and Psyche AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Pomona. The firm it meets most often is Espinoza Law Group (1).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 7

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 9 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

Los Angeles 3
Pomona 2
Bakersfield 1
Long Beach 1
Marina del Rey 1
Oxnard 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.

4 for the applicant
3 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ20508246 · 2025-09-02 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Thus, based upon the evidence presented, defendant's request was premature, in violation of section 4062.2(b), and invalid.
Defendant's request for panel 7799274 was premature as it was made before 5:00 pm on April 3, 2025, violating Labor Code section 4062.2(b) and related regulations, rendering the panel invalid.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ10714339 · 2024-11-05 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.6In this case, applicant's vocational expert's report does not constitute substantial evidence as the evaluator has incorrectly and improperly interjected his own medical opinions into the case regarding applicant's ability to use his left hand. A vocational evaluator does not create medical facts in a case. Vocational experts review the medical record created by the doctors and reach conclusions as to applicant's vocational feasibility based upon that record. Applicant's physical restrictions with the left hand is a medical issue, which requires medical evidence. If the vocational expert has cause to disagree with the work restrictions assigned, the parties must return to the medical experts to clarify applicant's ability to use the left hand.
The WCAB found the vocational expert's opinion was not substantial evidence because it improperly included medical opinions about the left hand, which is a medical issue requiring medical evidence. The Board rescinded the WCJ's award and remanded for further development of the medical record.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11114734 · 2023-06-06 · Pomona District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The Joint Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision dated March 13, 2023 found the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof of injury as alleged, both with regard to the specific as well as the cumulative trauma. The applicant was not found to be a credible witness as to the allegations made for both claimed injuries. Those findings were based on the entirety of the record submitted at time of trial with the conclusion the applicant shall take nothing.
Applicant failed to sustain burden of proof of injury; WCJ credibility determinations were given great weight and supported by substantial evidence; defense witnesses' testimony was more credible; QME Dr. Lee's medical opinions were considered but did not overcome credibility findings.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ8446188 · 2022-01-21 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we will grant reconsideration solely to amend the finding of permanent disability to 39%. The WCJ's finding of 40% permanent disability appears to be a clerical error because application of the Combined Values Chart (CVC) to the disability found (i.e., 22% for the upper GI, 17% for the lumbar spine, and 6% for the left knee) results in 39%. The Appeals Board may correct clerical errors at any time. (Toccalino v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 543, 558 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 145].) We will otherwise affirm the findings of the WCJ for the reasons stated below and for the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, both of which we adopt and incorporate, except the recommendation that we deny reconsideration and the discussion regarding application of the CVC.
The permanent disability was amended to 39% based on the Combined Values Chart and apportionment was applied due to pre-existing non-industrial gastrointestinal issues.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14533829 · 2022-01-21 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC., insured by STATE NAT'L INS. CO, administered by CANNON COCHRAN, hereinafter "Petitioner", through its legal representative, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the November 5, 2021, Findings and Award granting retroactive temporary disability benefits to the applicant based on the unrebutted report of Dr. Balian.
The unrebutted QME report of Dr. Balian indicated a period of temporary partial disability, and the employer did not provide substantial evidence of a bona fide offer of alternative/modified duty during that period, supporting the award of temporary disability indemnity.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ3543062 · 2021-12-01 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. The arbitrator has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, recommending that the petition be denied. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return this matter to the arbitrator so that he may independently consider the evidence in this matter, render a decision, and document the proceedings as mandated by Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Bd. en banc).
The Board found the record inadequate for a decision on coverage and remanded the matter to the arbitrator to create an adequate record and reconsider the coverage issue.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ17009720 · 2025-10-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that further discovery is needed. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal, rescind the July 10, 2025 order, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the July 10, 2025 order setting the matter for trial level and return this matter to the trial for further proceedings. 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
The Appeals Board grants removal because the petitioner showed that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, supported by the WCJ's acknowledgment that additional discovery is warranted.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8877105 · 2024-11-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and the facts as set forth in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition for Removal.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12712852 · 2022-11-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 23, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The petition was timely filed but was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15605512 · 2022-10-25 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition as moot because it seeks review of an order which was subsequently amended.
The petition was dismissed as moot because the original venue order was amended, providing an alternate basis for venue that was not challenged.
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.

DOMINGO, ELIAS & VU
DOMINGO ELIAS & VU
LAW OFFICES OF DOMINGO, ELIAS & VU
DOMINGO ELIAS & VU APLC
Domingo Elias Law Firm
Domingo Elias & Vu

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 →

Domingo Elias Law Firm

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

3 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ20508246 · 2025-09-02 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Thus, based upon the evidence presented, defendant's request was premature, in violation of section 4062.2(b), and invalid.

Defendant's request for panel 7799274 was premature as it was made before 5:00 pm on April 3, 2025, violating Labor Code section 4062.2(b) and related regulations, rendering the panel invalid.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ10714339 · 2024-11-05 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.6In this case, applicant's vocational expert's report does not constitute substantial evidence as the evaluator has incorrectly and improperly interjected his own medical opinions into the case regarding applicant's ability to use his left hand. A vocational evaluator does not create medical facts in a case. Vocational experts review the medical record created by the doctors and reach conclusions as to applicant's vocational feasibility based upon that record. Applicant's physical restrictions with the left hand is a medical issue, which requires medical evidence. If the vocational expert has cause to disagree with the work restrictions assigned, the parties must return to the medical experts to clarify applicant's ability to use the left hand.

The WCAB found the vocational expert's opinion was not substantial evidence because it improperly included medical opinions about the left hand, which is a medical issue requiring medical evidence. The Board rescinded the WCJ's award and remanded for further development of the medical record.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11114734 · 2023-06-06 · Pomona District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The Joint Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision dated March 13, 2023 found the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof of injury as alleged, both with regard to the specific as well as the cumulative trauma. The applicant was not found to be a credible witness as to the allegations made for both claimed injuries. Those findings were based on the entirety of the record submitted at time of trial with the conclusion the applicant shall take nothing.

Applicant failed to sustain burden of proof of injury; WCJ credibility determinations were given great weight and supported by substantial evidence; defense witnesses' testimony was more credible; QME Dr. Lee's medical opinions were considered but did not overcome credibility findings.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ8446188 · 2022-01-21 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we will grant reconsideration solely to amend the finding of permanent disability to 39%. The WCJ's finding of 40% permanent disability appears to be a clerical error because application of the Combined Values Chart (CVC) to the disability found (i.e., 22% for the upper GI, 17% for the lumbar spine, and 6% for the left knee) results in 39%. The Appeals Board may correct clerical errors at any time. (Toccalino v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 543, 558 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 145].) We will otherwise affirm the findings of the WCJ for the reasons stated below and for the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, both of which we adopt and incorporate, except the recommendation that we deny reconsideration and the discussion regarding application of the CVC.

The permanent disability was amended to 39% based on the Combined Values Chart and apportionment was applied due to pre-existing non-industrial gastrointestinal issues.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14533829 · 2022-01-21 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC., insured by STATE NAT'L INS. CO, administered by CANNON COCHRAN, hereinafter "Petitioner", through its legal representative, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the November 5, 2021, Findings and Award granting retroactive temporary disability benefits to the applicant based on the unrebutted report of Dr. Balian.

The unrebutted QME report of Dr. Balian indicated a period of temporary partial disability, and the employer did not provide substantial evidence of a bona fide offer of alternative/modified duty during that period, supporting the award of temporary disability indemnity.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ3543062 · 2021-12-01 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. The arbitrator has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, recommending that the petition be denied. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return this matter to the arbitrator so that he may independently consider the evidence in this matter, render a decision, and document the proceedings as mandated by Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Bd. en banc).

The Board found the record inadequate for a decision on coverage and remanded the matter to the arbitrator to create an adequate record and reconsider the coverage issue.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ17009720 · 2025-10-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that further discovery is needed. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal, rescind the July 10, 2025 order, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the July 10, 2025 order setting the matter for trial level and return this matter to the trial for further proceedings. 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

The Appeals Board grants removal because the petitioner showed that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, supported by the WCJ's acknowledgment that additional discovery is warranted.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8877105 · 2024-11-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and the facts as set forth in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition for Removal.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12712852 · 2022-11-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 23, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

The petition was timely filed but was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to dismissal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15605512 · 2022-10-25 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition as moot because it seeks review of an order which was subsequently amended.

The petition was dismissed as moot because the original venue order was amended, providing an alternate basis for venue that was not challenged.

Official decision · page 1 →