California WCABLaw firm
EM Legal
EM Legal is named in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2025–2026. The disputes are Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Bakersfield. The firm it meets most often is Garrett Law Group (1).
- Decisions
- 5
- Years
- 2025–2026
- Issues disputed
- 1
- District offices
- 4
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 5 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.
2 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
Where they appear
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.
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.
- ADJ18040257 · 2025-12-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6The undersigned issued a Findings of Fact and Orders on 9/8/2025 finding that the selection made by Applicant on 6/23/2025 to use CNS as his primary treating physician was valid in that CNS was part of the carrier's MPN at the time of selection.
The WCJ found and the Appeals Board upheld that the applicant validly selected CNS as his PTP from the carrier's MPN on 6/23/2025, when CNS was still on the MPN. The defendant's removal of CNS from the MPN after that date does not retroactively invalidate the selection or deny treatment.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ17466712 · 2026-05-08 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.345 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, the applicant is seeking reconsideration of the Order issued by the WCJ on February 27, 2026, wherein the WCJ continued the status conference held on February 26, 2026 to another status conference. The WCJ's decision solely to continue a hearing resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision, and the Petition will be dismissed. In the Report, the WCJ observes that although applicant logged into Court Call, because of connection issues, applicant could not appear and participate at the February 26, 2026 status
The order continuing a status conference is not a final order and thus not subject to reconsideration; removal is denied as applicant failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ20858483 · 2025-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Removal of the order of continuance issued by the WCJ on May 29, 2025, is DISMISSED.
The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot because the parties agreed to a joint continuance with a discovery plan, rendering the issue no longer live.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ19035008 · 2025-10-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on July 29, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board found that 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 of the merits.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ17140347 · 2025-05-15 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on removal, the parties entered into a Compromise & Release. Therefore, the Petition for Removal in response to the decision issued on June 26, 2024 is moot, and it will be dismissed.
The parties entered into a Compromise & Release while the Petition for Removal was pending, rendering the petition moot.
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.
- EM LEGAL
- EM Legal
- EM LEGAL APC
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.