Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, LLP

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
• Oxnard 10
• Los Angeles 7
• Anaheim 5
• San Diego 5
• Santa Barbara 5
• Long Beach 4
• San Bernardino 4
• Fresno 3
• Oakland 3
• San Francisco 3
• Santa Ana 3

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.

• 39 for the defense
• 30 for the applicant
• 10 returned for more record

Counted over 77 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.

• ADJ9749095 · 2026-02-20 · Redding District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, upon preliminary review of the record, we are unable to determine what applicant's scheduled rating is. As such, we will grant reconsideration to further study the record and to determine if it is possible to identify applicant's scheduled rating or if further proceedings may be necessary on this point.

  The Appeals Board could not determine from the record what applicant's scheduled rating is, whether the medical evidence is substantial, or whether apportionment was properly addressed. Further review and possible development of the record are required.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16929084 · 2025-12-22 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ found that applicant was not an employee because he was not receiving wages irrespective of profits.2 The parties fail to acknowledge that the section goes on to specifically address general partners, without limiting language, that have not elected to be excluded from coverage.3 Whether applicant was a working member of a partnership or a general partner, he would be automatically covered by the division regardless. Section 3352 (a)(17)(A) specifically provides that general partners may be excluded from the definition of employee, and thereby excluded from coverage, only when they execute "a written waiver of his or her rights under this chapter stating under penalty of perjury that the person is a qualifying general partner." (Lab. Code, § 3352(a)(17))4 Neither party appears to dispute that applicant is a general partner that remained a practicing attorney, thereby meeting the definition of employee either under the general definition or the explicit inclusion of subsection f of Section 3351. Thus, this issue is not an employment issue, but a coverage issue.

  The WCJ found applicant was not an employee under section 3351(f) because he did not receive wages irrespective of profits, but the Appeals Board found that as a general partner who did not waive coverage, he is covered by the division. The matter involves insurance coverage and must be submitted to arbitration before further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10774716 · 2025-09-02 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 2, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment in the form of a stroke and to the psyche; that applicant's injury has resulted in permanent total disability; and that defendant has not met its burden of proof with regard to non-industrial apportionment.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the QME's apportionment opinion was not substantial evidence because it apportioned to causation of injury (stroke) rather than causation of disability, and did not explain how risk factors caused the disability. Therefore, the award of 100% permanent total disability without apportionment was upheld.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7894308 · 2025-08-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6We find defendant's argument in this respect to be unpersuasive, however, because the undisputed evidence establishes that applicant's psychiatric disability did not arise out of a generalized anxiety or fear of job loss. Rather, applicant's psychiatric disability arose in part from actual notice of non-renewal of his employment contract that occurred some three to four months prior to his last day worked. Framed in terms of the analysis of the Court of Appeal in Bryan, the notice of non-renewal was "something that [took] place" in the employment relationship and arose "out of an employee's working relationship with his or her employer." (Bryan, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1181.)

  The WCAB found that the notice of contract non-renewal was an actual event of employment and thus not subject to apportionment; the apportionment opinions of the QMEs were not substantial evidence; applicant is entitled to unapportioned psychiatric and sleep-related disability.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11994224 · 2025-05-23 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In my F&A, I followed the reports of the Agreed Medical Evaluators. I found that applicant suffered injury arising from and within the course and scope of employment to his head, neck, back, right wrist, right knee, cognitive and vestibular systems. The injury resulted in 49% partial permanent disability, based on the formal permanent disability rating of the agreed medical reports. I awarded a 15% attorney fee to applicant attorney from the 49% indemnity awarded. I awarded applicant's permanent partial indemnity, less the attorney fee and less the temporary total indemnity overpayment.

  The WCJ's findings of 49% permanent partial disability and a 15% attorney fee were supported by substantial evidence including agreed medical reports and surveillance evidence, and were upheld on reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10906751 · 2025-01-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.39.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision observed that the apportionment opinions described in the medical-legal reporting of Dr. Galloni were couched in terms of possibility, rather than reasonable medical probability, and in any event, lacked an explanation of how and why the identified factors of apportionment were causing current disability. (Opinion on Decision, at pp.17-18.) Defendant's Petition contends that even if the physician's apportionment analysis is framed in words of conjecture, the report "must be construed in the proper context as statements of medical probability." (Petition, at p. 13:7.) However, we agree with the WCJ that to the extent that Dr. Galloni's apportionment opinions are merely conclusory and do not substantively discuss the medical basis for the physician's conclusions, they do not constitute substantial evidence. Accordingly, defendant has not met its burden of establishing apportionment to nonindustrial factors as a result. (Report, at p. 19; see also Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620 (Appeals Board en banc) (Escobedo) ["even where a medical report "addresses" the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding

  The defendant did not meet its burden to establish apportionment to nonindustrial factors as the PQME's apportionment opinions were conclusory and lacked substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ7608312 · 2024-12-23 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 3, 2022 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant was an independent contractor and not an employee of defendant.

  The Board found that applicant was rendering services for Cabco Yellow at the time of injury, thus the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357 attached. Defendant failed to overcome this presumption by showing applicant was an independent contractor, as Cabco exercised control over multiple facets of applicant's work consistent with an employer-employee relationship.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16513831 · 2024-09-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we amend the Findings of Fact to find that applicant sustained injury to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, right hand, right shoulder, right knee, and left ankle and that defendant was insured by Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies. We defer the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to his left shoulder, left knee and nose, and otherwise affirm the Findings of Fact.

  The WCJ found the applicant credible and relied on QME Dr. Oechsel's medical opinion, which was based on reasonable medical probability and an adequate examination, to find injury to specified body parts arising out of employment. The Board deferred injury findings for left shoulder, left hand, and nose due to lack of medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ1715757 · 2024-09-16 · San Diego District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Applicant's vocational expert, Alejandro Calderon opined that the applicant's ability to compete in the open labor market continues to be "entirely eroded from an orthopedic perspective and chronic severe chronic pain symptomology, limited physical tolerances and stamina, and that her amenability to Vocational Rehabilitation Services for employment at this time remains non- feasible. (App. Ex. 5, December 2, 2021, pages 1, 2, 15, 17, 19 point 4, 21 most of page, page 22 (no apportionment to non-industrial causation; App. Ex. 6 June 9, 2023, pages 6-7 (Response)). Since his opinions are based on the reports of Dr. Thompson and Dr. Bernicker, and is limited to her limitations due to pain and the orthopedic injuries for which there is no apportionment, the applicant has met her burden on the issue of vocational feasibility.

  The applicant's vocational expert's opinion, supported by medical reports, was found substantial evidence showing vocational non-feasibility due to orthopedic injuries and pain, while the defense vocational expert's reports were not substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ16148307 · 2024-08-09 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Here, as set forth by the WCJ, applicant demonstrated that his claimed injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Applicant credibly testified that when he was shot, he was at the location due to his employment and was engaged in his regular job duties, and he credibly testified that he did not know why he was shot. Once applicant provided that evidence, the burden shifted to defendant.

  Applicant credibly testified that he was shot while performing his regular job duties and was at the location due to his employment; defendant failed to present evidence to rebut this, and the injury was found compensable under the neutral risk and special risk-zone of danger doctrines.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11347585 · 2024-05-10 · San Bernardino District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The lien claimant acknowledged they were not within the defendant's medical provider network. (See petition for petition for reconsideration p. 3 ll. 19) Based on the current record the undersigned found lien claimant is not entitled reimbursement for medical treatment cost.

  Lien claimant RMS Medical was not within the defendant's medical provider network and the reports by Dr. Gottschalk did not prove or disprove a disputed medical fact essential to adjudication of the applicant's claim for benefits. Disputes regarding denial of a specific treatment protocol must be resolved through utilization review and independent medical review, not by a treating physician or panel QME. Therefore, lien claimant is not entitled to reimbursement for medical treatment or medical-legal expenses.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• 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 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 19.

• GOLDMAN, MAGDALIN & KRIKES
• GOLDMAN MAGDALIN & KRIKES
• GOLDMAN, MAGDALIN & KRIKES, LLP
• GOLDMAN MAGDALIN STRAATSMA
• Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, LLP
• Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes
• Goldman Magdalin & Krikes
• GOLDMAN MAGDALIN
• GOLDMAN MAGDALIN KRIKES
• Goldman Magdalin
• LAW OFFICES OF GOLDMAN, MAGDALIN, KRIKES
• GOLDMAN, MAGDALIN, & KRIKES, LLP

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.