California WCABLaw firm
Hong Law Firm
Hong Law Firm is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Liens (1) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1). They were heard most often at Riverside, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Bradford & Barthel (1).
- Decisions
- 6
- Years
- 2021–2025
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 4
Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 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.
- Bradford & Barthel1
- England, Ponticello & St. Clair1
- Siegel, Moreno & Stettler1
- The Hanover Law Office1
- Tobin Lucks1
1 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.
- ADJ11273405 · 2023-07-31 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant RMS Medical Group (RMS) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 11, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the issues regarding medical legal reimbursement, penalties and interest, and costs, have previously been addressed by the Appeals Board and therefore are moot; and that defendant has not acted in bad faith so RMS is not entitled to an award for Labor Code section costs and sanctions.
The WCAB found that RMS was entitled to payment for medical-legal services plus statutory penalties and interest, but not entitled to costs and sanctions because defendant did not act in bad faith.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ11273405 · 2022-10-03 · Riverside District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant RMS Medical Group (RMS) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 14, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that RMS was not entitled to receive payment for the medical-legal services it provided the applicant (applicant) on April 11, 2018, and the WCJ ordered that RMS take nothing by way of its lien.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14834185 · 2023-01-18 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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 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 petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
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.
- HONG LAW
- Hong Law Firm
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.