Equitable Law Firm

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 19
• Anaheim 2
• Marina del Rey 1
• Riverside 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.

• 9 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 21 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.

• ADJ10642765 · 2026-05-18 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings of Fact that relate to the issue of new and further disability, and substitute a new Order that the issue of whether applicant has sustained new and further disability as alleged in her Petition to Reopen dated April 13, 2021, is deferred.

  The Appeals Board found the evidentiary record insufficient to adjudicate new and further disability and compensable consequence injuries, and thus deferred the issue for further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ17726478 · 2025-10-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued July 11, 2025. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant was employed by Samuel Hale, LLC (Hale) as the general employer and DiBara Masonry (DiBara) as the special employer, that applicant's employment with Hale was subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement with the UFCW, that there was a valid alternative dispute resolution agreement, and that the WCAB does not have jurisdiction. The WCJ ordered the case dismissed without prejudice, invalidated applicant's election under Labor Code 5500.5,1 and ordered the case off calendar.

  The WCJ found a valid collective bargaining agreement and ADR agreement, leading to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, but the WCAB found the record incomplete and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10404221 · 2024-12-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11period June 30, 1994 to October 9, 2019, as a general manager, occupational group number: 212, at Burbank, California, by Camile's, Inc., claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, cardiovascular system (in the form of hypertension) and psychiatric system. 2. The issue of what period(s) applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury is deferred. 3. The issue of the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is deferred. 4. The issue of the period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5 is deferred. 5. All other issues are deferred.

  The WCJ failed to make findings on the period(s) of cumulative trauma injury, date of injury under Labor Code section 5412, and period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5, requiring further development and deferral of these issues.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ10985531 · 2024-09-04 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the QME did not complete a Rolda analysis. The QME simply stated that predominant industrial causation existed. That is not sufficient to determine whether applicant's psychological injury is industrial and whether defendant met its burden of proof to establish substantial causation from lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. The QME must discuss each category of stress. For example, here, it appears that applicant was stressed with the changes in her workload, interactions with her supervisor, and being placed on a performance improvement plan.3 We do not suggest these are the only categories. That is a determination the QME must make and the QME must assign causation to each category of stress, which caused applicant's psychological injury.

  The WCJ's original decision lacked a proper Rolda analysis by the QME psychiatrist, who did not break down the categories of stress and causation as required, leaving no basis to find the injury non-industrial. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's order and remanded for further proceedings to obtain a Rolda-compliant medical opinion.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10876135 · 2024-06-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on March 29, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while allegedly employed as a laborer on March 3, 2011, applicant allegedly sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to the back and legs; and (2) applicant was not an employee of defendant.

  The WCJ's finding that applicant was not an employee was based on the exclusion of rebuttal witness testimony due to procedural rules, which was erroneous; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings to develop the record on employment and defenses.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10591850 · 2024-05-09 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a February 26, 2024 Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, low back, bilateral wrists (carpal tunnel syndrome), and bilateral shoulders. The WCJ found the current record insufficient with respect to whether applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to the nervous system/psyche, headaches, diabetes, and hypertension. The WCJ ordered parties to further develop the record and to meet and confer in an attempt to reach an agreement on Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs) to address injury AOE/COE as well "whole person impairment, permanent disability, and apportionment" where applicable. (F&A, p. 2.)

  The WCJ found the record insufficient to determine injury AOE/COE to the nervous system/psyche, headaches, diabetes, and hypertension and ordered further development of the record. The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ's decision to deny reconsideration and require further development due to incomplete medical opinions.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11757093 · 2024-05-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on February 8, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his lower back on November 10, 2018.

  The WCJ's denial of industrial causation was based on reliance on PQME Dr. Sherman's reports and applicant's non-credible testimony; the WCAB found Dr. Sherman's opinions inconsistent, speculative, and not substantial evidence, and granted reconsideration for further medical development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8894930 · 2024-01-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we will substitute findings that omit the findings that UEBTF has no liability and that liability is found "only" as to Green Zone Trucking.

  The Board found that the WCJ's original finding that UEBTF had no liability was unsupported and contrary to legislative intent, thus granting reconsideration and substituting findings to include UEBTF liability.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10027874 · 2023-06-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, the QME is clear in his assessment that there was industrial contribution to applicant's knee injury. (Ex. Z, Transcript of the deposition of Parviz Galdjie, M.D., December 8, 2020, at 29:1.) Given the finding of the QME that applicant's employment contributed to the industrial injury, we concur with the WCJ's determination that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE, and will affirm the F&A, accordingly. (South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489].)

  The QME, Dr. Parviz Galdjie, opined that the applicant's work activities aggravated her right knee condition, constituting an industrial injury AOE/COE, supported by substantial evidence and legal precedent.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13220426 · 2023-03-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4III. DISCUSSION The appeal filed by applicant essentially questions the substantially of the medical findings of Dr. Peter Alexakis, the PQME. These defense Exhibits, A, B and C, were found by the court to be accurate, well-reasoned and clear. They were held to be substantial medical evidence and better evidence that the reports of the treating physicians. Applicant argues that the PQME's failure to find injury to the applicant's neck and back are incorrect and speculative. They argue that the reports do not properly review all of the applicant's medical records and that the records, specifically the Facey medical records, are not offered into evidence. Applicant asserts that the PQME in the report dated 8/15/2020 indicates that he reviewed a Rehab 90 job analysis stating that applicant lifted up to 10 lbs. They refute this by asserting that the applicant testified to lifting objects up to 50 lbs. They argue that the PQME may have reviewed an unauthenticated job analysis. None of the arguments made by applicant on appeal were raised at the time of trial.

  The court found the PQME reports to be accurate, well-reasoned, and substantial medical evidence, giving them greater weight than treating physicians' reports. The applicant's arguments against the PQME's findings were not raised at trial and were speculative or waived.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14111846 · 2023-02-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Based upon the medical report(s) of AME report of Ronald Perelman, M.D., dated 8/16/2021, which is the better reasoned and more persuasive, it is found that applicant did not sustain injury to her bilateral upper extremities arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period of 12/1/2014 through 1/14/2021, and there was in fact - no continuous trauma injury. The undersigned found the Perelman report to be substantial medical evidence.

  The WCJ and WCAB found the AME report of Dr. Perelman to be the better reasoned and more persuasive medical evidence, supported by the presence of a certified Farsi interpreter at the examination, despite applicant's contrary testimony.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ10393358 · 2022-06-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar all agreed that the employee has sustained cumulative trauma to the left shoulder and right knee as well as the low back. (Report, p. 2.) The physicians received accurate histories and made identical findings of injury, need for care and disabilities. Hence the preponderance of evidence supports the finding of injury to the left shoulder and right knee. (Report, p. 3.)

  The preponderance of evidence from Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar supports injury to the left shoulder and right knee, despite defendant's arguments about prior injury and inconsistent testimony.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• EQUITABLE LAW FIRM
• EQUITABLE LAW
• Equitable Law Firm
• EQUITABLE LAW GROUP
• Equitable Law

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.