California WCABLaw firm

English, Lloyd & Armenta

English, Lloyd & Armenta is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (3) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Riverside, then Anaheim.

Decisions: 12
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 4

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Riverside 9
Anaheim 1
San Bernadino 1
San Bernardino 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
2 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ20105844 · 2026-03-13 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on January 5, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the Appeals Board did not have jurisdiction to act upon the disbursement of funds from a third-party settlement check.
The Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction over the third party or the disbursement of third-party settlement funds absent an agreement approved by the WCAB; the issue of credit for third-party settlement funds is within WCAB jurisdiction and was deferred by the WCJ.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13972865 · 2022-07-25 · Riverside District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant contends that it provided applicant, with two valid modified work offers with several nonprofit organizations in accordance with Rule 10116.9 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10116.9), and that applicant's refusal of the offers constituted grounds to deny him temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. Defendant also asserts that applicant's attorney "intentionally interfered" with the return-to-work process so that applicant could claim TTD, and that the offers should be treated as though they were not withdrawn.
The WCJ found the refusal of modified work offers unreasonable, which would justify denying TTD benefits, but the offers were withdrawn, making the issue moot. The WCAB agreed no wrongful interference by applicant's attorney occurred and allowed TTD benefits despite refusal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ20169805 · 2026-06-04 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 12, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11145757 · 2025-09-29 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal, or in the alternative, reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) July 16, 2025 minute order denying applicant's request for automatic reassignment.
The WCJ's denial of automatic reassignment was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed. Removal was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18809301 · 2025-06-13 · Riverside 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
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 →
ADJ2618433 · 2024-04-08 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Decision) issued on February 28, 2024, by the Appeals Board. In the Opinion portion of our Decision, in pertinent part, we admonished applicant's attorney, Juan Armenta of English Lloyd & Armenta, that as an officer of the court, he may not include material misstatements of fact in verified petitions before a court and that such conduct may subject him to sanctions. (See § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.)
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the admonishment was not a final order, decision, or award subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14429241 · 2024-03-26 · Riverside 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy, based on WCJ's analysis and record review.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10691265 · 2024-01-04 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Moreover, to the extent that section 5710 allows for depositions to be undertaken in workers' compensation proceedings, it also provides that the depositions must be undertaken "in the manner prescribed by law." (Lab. Code, § 5710(a).) This includes the issuance of the appropriate notice of deposition or subpoena prior to seeking the expenditure of the Appeals Board's time and resources via petition to compel the attendance of witnesses. (Lab. Code, § 5710; Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010, 2025.220.) Accordingly, the F&O was obtained without the mandatory procedural steps necessary to ensure due process is afforded to all parties, and we rescind the order compelling the attendance of the witnesses at deposition, accordingly.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's order compelling depositions was issued without mandatory procedural due process safeguards, including proper notice and opportunity to object, thus rescinding the order and returning the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ17947769 · 2023-10-27 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration/Removal1 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.
The petition was dismissed because the WCJ's order was not a final decision and did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue; removal was denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11106272 · 2022-04-22 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

ENGLISH LLOYD & ARMENTA
English, Lloyd & Armenta
English Lloyd & Armenta
ENGLISH, LLOYD & ARMENTA
English Lloyd
ENGLISH LLOYD

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

10 for the defense

2 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ20105844 · 2026-03-13 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on January 5, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the Appeals Board did not have jurisdiction to act upon the disbursement of funds from a third-party settlement check.

The Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction over the third party or the disbursement of third-party settlement funds absent an agreement approved by the WCAB; the issue of credit for third-party settlement funds is within WCAB jurisdiction and was deferred by the WCJ.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13972865 · 2022-07-25 · Riverside District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant contends that it provided applicant, with two valid modified work offers with several nonprofit organizations in accordance with Rule 10116.9 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10116.9), and that applicant's refusal of the offers constituted grounds to deny him temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. Defendant also asserts that applicant's attorney "intentionally interfered" with the return-to-work process so that applicant could claim TTD, and that the offers should be treated as though they were not withdrawn.

The WCJ found the refusal of modified work offers unreasonable, which would justify denying TTD benefits, but the offers were withdrawn, making the issue moot. The WCAB agreed no wrongful interference by applicant's attorney occurred and allowed TTD benefits despite refusal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ20169805 · 2026-06-04 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 12, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11145757 · 2025-09-29 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal, or in the alternative, reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) July 16, 2025 minute order denying applicant's request for automatic reassignment.

The WCJ's denial of automatic reassignment was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed. Removal was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18809301 · 2025-06-13 · Riverside 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

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 →

ADJ2618433 · 2024-04-08 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Decision) issued on February 28, 2024, by the Appeals Board. In the Opinion portion of our Decision, in pertinent part, we admonished applicant's attorney, Juan Armenta of English Lloyd & Armenta, that as an officer of the court, he may not include material misstatements of fact in verified petitions before a court and that such conduct may subject him to sanctions. (See § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.)

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the admonishment was not a final order, decision, or award subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14429241 · 2024-03-26 · Riverside 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy, based on WCJ's analysis and record review.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10691265 · 2024-01-04 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Moreover, to the extent that section 5710 allows for depositions to be undertaken in workers' compensation proceedings, it also provides that the depositions must be undertaken "in the manner prescribed by law." (Lab. Code, § 5710(a).) This includes the issuance of the appropriate notice of deposition or subpoena prior to seeking the expenditure of the Appeals Board's time and resources via petition to compel the attendance of witnesses. (Lab. Code, § 5710; Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010, 2025.220.) Accordingly, the F&O was obtained without the mandatory procedural steps necessary to ensure due process is afforded to all parties, and we rescind the order compelling the attendance of the witnesses at deposition, accordingly.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's order compelling depositions was issued without mandatory procedural due process safeguards, including proper notice and opportunity to object, thus rescinding the order and returning the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ17947769 · 2023-10-27 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration/Removal1 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

The petition was dismissed because the WCJ's order was not a final decision and did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue; removal was denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11106272 · 2022-04-22 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 2 →