Law Office of Lysette R. Rios

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue5
• AOE/COE1
• Apportionment1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 9

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.

• 5 for the applicant
• 3 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

• ADJ19384154 · 2026-06-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3(See Defendants' Trial Brief, at p. 1 ["It does appear there is personal jurisdiction over the Cardinals based on applicant's testimony that he worked in California briefly for the Cardinals in 2012."].) The matter went to trial on three issues: (1) subject matter jurisdiction over the case; (2) personal jurisdiction over each defendant; and (3) whether any defendant is exempt according to section 3600.5. (Minutes of Hearing / Summary of Evidence ("MOH/SOE"), 9/9/2025, at p. 2.) Applicant was the sole witness to testify. (MOH/SOE, 11/10/2025, at pp. 2§ 11.) The WCJ issued his F&O on March 2, 2026, finding as relevant to this Petition (1) personal jurisdiction over the Dodgers, and (2) that section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) do not bar applicant's claim. The appended Opinion on Decision makes clear that the WCJ based his finding on the rationale that the Dodgers, a California-based employer, employed applicant during the last year of his professional career. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6§ 8.) The F&O deferred the question of personal jurisdiction over the other defendants. (F&O, at p. 3.)

  The WCJ found personal jurisdiction over the Dodgers and that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) do not bar the claim; however, the Appeals Board found concerns about substantial evidence on hire and work in California by the Dodgers, requiring further review.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ20181505 · 2026-05-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, we are concerned that the WCJ did not clearly make a finding as to whether applicant was hired in California or, perhaps more precisely, where applicant was located at the time the Bears reached out to him to offer him employment. As a result, further study of the record and the caselaw surrounding personal jurisdiction is necessary to determine whether the WCJ's decision can be effectively evaluated in the absence of such a finding, or whether we must return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine that factual question prior to rendering a judgement on whether there is personal jurisdiction over the Bears in California for purposes of this claim.

  The WCJ did not clearly find whether applicant was hired in California or where the Bears reached out to him, which is necessary to evaluate personal jurisdiction; further proceedings are needed to determine this factual question.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ15603997 · 2024-01-02 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant further contends that the reporting of Dr. Hendel in the specialty of internal medicine does not constitute substantial medical evidence. Applicant contends that Dr. Hendel evaluated applicant's injury as an alleged specific injury of June 14, 1999, when applicant is pleading a cumulative injury from September 15, 1998 to November 19, 1999. (Petition, at p. 6:14.) Applicant also contends Dr. Hendel reviewed 289 pages of records, while internist Dr. Brautbar reviewed at least 827 pages. Applicant argues the reporting of Dr. Hendel is not based on a complete review of the medical record and is therefore not substantial evidence. Applicant contends that Dr. Hendel's conclusions with respect to applicant's hypertension are not based on the evidence of hypertension located in the medical record, and do not comport with the

  The reporting of Dr. Hendel was found not to constitute substantial medical evidence because it failed to address the cumulative injury claim and was based on an inadequate medical history, while the reporting of Dr. Brautbar was found to be more persuasive and comprehensive.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11979009 · 2023-12-12 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.2FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, while employed during the period October 1, 1971 through February 13, 1974, as a professional athlete, Occupational Group Number 590, at various locations, in California, by California Golden Seals sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left and right hand/multiple fingers and psyche. 2. At the time of injury, the employer's workers' compensation carriers were CIGA for Lumbermens Mutual, in liquidation, for the California Golden Seals; Argonaut for the California Golden Seals. 3. Pursuant to Labor Code § 5412, applicant's date of injury is January 29, 2019. 4. Pursuant to Labor Code § 5500.5 the last date of injurious exposure was February 13, 1974, and the responsible employer is the California Golden Seals with coverage for worker's compensation being provided by California Insurance Guarantee Association for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, in liquidation. 5. The issues of permanent disability and apportionment are deferred.

  Issues of permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney fees are deferred pending further proceedings and consultative rating from the Disability Evaluation Unit.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12133512 · 2023-08-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant1 contends that applicant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations of Labor Code2 sections 5405 and 5405.3 (Petition for Reconsideration (Petition), June 23, 2023, at p. 5:20.) Defendant acknowledges the WCJ's determination that applicant's testimony was fully credible, and that applicant testified that he did not became aware of his rights to file a cumulative injury claim in California until years after the end of his career. Defendant asserts that, "[w]hile it may be true that this is when the applicant first believes he knew, it was not when he was first informed

  The Board agreed with the WCJ that the applicant did not receive sufficient notice of his rights to file a cumulative injury claim in California, and that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim because the applicant was not chargeable with knowledge of his rights until years after his career ended.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9146501 · 2023-02-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant appears to have played four games in California during the course of his professional career, and also testified to participating in practices during a fifth trip to California, though he did not actually play in that game. Applicant does not appear to contest the WCJ's finding that he played in at least 146 games across his career, each with their own associated practices.3 Therefore, even viewing matters in the light most favorable to applicant, it appears that his total California exposure amounts to at best approximately 3% of his total playing career almost exactly the same percentage as in Johnson, where one game out of 34 also represented roughly 3% of the injury exposure the Johnson Court considered.

  The applicant's cumulative trauma injury exposure in California was only about 3% of his total career, insufficient to establish a significant connection to California for jurisdiction under Johnson, and the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15186987 · 2024-02-01 · Santa Ana 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11905880 · 2022-12-21 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

  The WCAB panel gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to reject the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Einbund's medical reports, which considered the applicant's weight issues and attributed 100% of the orthopedic disability to playing professional hockey.

  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.

• Law Office of Lysette R. Rios
• THE LAW OFFICE OF LYSETTE RIOS, APC
• LAW OFFICE OF LYSETTE R. RIOS, APC
• THE LAW OFFICE OF LYSETTE R. RIOS
• LAW OFFICE OF LYSETTE RIOS, APC
• LAW OFFICES OF LYSETTE RIOS
• Law Office of Lysette Rios
• LAW OFFICE OF LYSETTE RIOS

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.