California WCABLaw firm

Law Office of Robert S. Lee

Law Office of Robert S. Lee is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Jurisdiction / venue (1) and QME/AME process (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Albert and Mackenzie (1).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 10 of 10 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.

Who they face

4 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Los Angeles 11
Anaheim 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.

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

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ12469521 · 2022-11-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The orthopedic QME Dr. Fleming conducted a thorough evaluation of applicant and explained the rationale for his conclusions based on his objective examination and applicant's history as detailed in the medical records. Dr. Truong's conclusions are based on an inaccurate history regarding applicant's job duties while employed by defendant. Dr. Truong also did not review any medical records. We agree with the WCJ that the orthopedic QME Dr. Fleming's reporting is more persuasive than Dr. Truong's and constitutes substantial evidence that applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE to the orthopedic parts pled.
The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE based on the persuasive orthopedic QME report and the psychological QME report, as well as credibility determinations favoring the defense witnesses.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ9313954 · 2021-11-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Applicant has pled injury in the form of a sleep disorder. Defendant disputes compensability for this condition. Section 4062.2 governs the process to obtain a medical-legal evaluation from a panel QME in a represented case if the parties do not agree on an AME. (Lab. Code, § 4062.2.) In the absence of an additional panel in neurology, applicant is prevented from conducting necessary medical-legal discovery to meet her burden of proof to show compensability for her sleep disorder. We therefore agree with applicant that an additional QME panel in neurology is warranted. (See McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906 [the Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues].)
Applicant showed good cause for an additional QME panel in neurology to evaluate her sleep disorder, and the WCAB found that the absence of such a panel prevented necessary medical-legal discovery to meet the burden of proof for compensability.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11292762 · 2021-05-26 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.71. The application in ADJ127220128 claims an injury for the same body parts and time period as the application in ADJ11292762. 2. Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10455, the later filed application is subject to summary dismissal. 3. The issue of Defendant's Petition for Costs and Sanctions is deferred with jurisdiction reserved at the trial level.
Applicant did not present evidence of compensable disability in 2017, so there was no basis for a second cumulative trauma injury; thus, the later application was duplicative and subject to dismissal.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ10900742 · 2026-06-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 04, 2023 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury to psyche in either ADJ10900742 or ADJ10900743.
The Board granted reconsideration to review the entire record and then rescinded the prior Findings and Order, returning the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7836843 · 2025-07-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 19, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.
The Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues and remanded the matter to the WCJ to consider the compromise and release and proposed order, rescinding the prior Findings and Order.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11105160 · 2024-12-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.12For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the September 25, 2024 Joint Order Vacating Submission to Develop the Record and Setting Matter for Status Conference is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the September 25, 2024 Joint Order Vacating Submission to Develop the Record and Setting Matter for Status Conference is RESCINDED and that the matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The WCJ's order vacating submission due to alleged ex parte communication was rescinded because the record was insufficient to evaluate the issue and applicant was entitled to a hearing before the report was struck.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ10151836 · 2024-06-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.
The order compelling attendance at a QME evaluation is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration is dismissed; removal is granted due to lack of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, causing irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ15371062 · 2024-04-12 · Los Angeles 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 demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15107350 · 2023-01-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,
Removal granted due to lack of evidentiary record and procedural due process violations in the WCJ's Order compelling in-person deposition attendance during the pandemic.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12712852 · 2022-11-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 23, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The petition was timely filed but was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ174134 · 2022-02-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the Appeals Board failed to act on defendant's petition within 60 days of its filing on September 10, 2021, through no fault of defendant. Therefore, considering that the Appeals Board's failure to act on the petition was in error, we find that our time to act was tolled.
The Appeals Board failed to act on the defendant's petition within 60 days through no fault of the defendant, so the time to act was tolled based on due process principles from Shipley.
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.

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT LEE
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT LEE
Law Office of Robert S. Lee
Law Offices of Robert Lee

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 →

Law Office of Robert S. Lee

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

3 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ12469521 · 2022-11-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The orthopedic QME Dr. Fleming conducted a thorough evaluation of applicant and explained the rationale for his conclusions based on his objective examination and applicant's history as detailed in the medical records. Dr. Truong's conclusions are based on an inaccurate history regarding applicant's job duties while employed by defendant. Dr. Truong also did not review any medical records. We agree with the WCJ that the orthopedic QME Dr. Fleming's reporting is more persuasive than Dr. Truong's and constitutes substantial evidence that applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE to the orthopedic parts pled.

The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE based on the persuasive orthopedic QME report and the psychological QME report, as well as credibility determinations favoring the defense witnesses.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ9313954 · 2021-11-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Applicant has pled injury in the form of a sleep disorder. Defendant disputes compensability for this condition. Section 4062.2 governs the process to obtain a medical-legal evaluation from a panel QME in a represented case if the parties do not agree on an AME. (Lab. Code, § 4062.2.) In the absence of an additional panel in neurology, applicant is prevented from conducting necessary medical-legal discovery to meet her burden of proof to show compensability for her sleep disorder. We therefore agree with applicant that an additional QME panel in neurology is warranted. (See McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906 [the Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues].)

Applicant showed good cause for an additional QME panel in neurology to evaluate her sleep disorder, and the WCAB found that the absence of such a panel prevented necessary medical-legal discovery to meet the burden of proof for compensability.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11292762 · 2021-05-26 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.71. The application in ADJ127220128 claims an injury for the same body parts and time period as the application in ADJ11292762. 2. Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10455, the later filed application is subject to summary dismissal. 3. The issue of Defendant's Petition for Costs and Sanctions is deferred with jurisdiction reserved at the trial level.

Applicant did not present evidence of compensable disability in 2017, so there was no basis for a second cumulative trauma injury; thus, the later application was duplicative and subject to dismissal.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ10900742 · 2026-06-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 04, 2023 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury to psyche in either ADJ10900742 or ADJ10900743.

The Board granted reconsideration to review the entire record and then rescinded the prior Findings and Order, returning the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7836843 · 2025-07-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 19, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

The Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues and remanded the matter to the WCJ to consider the compromise and release and proposed order, rescinding the prior Findings and Order.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11105160 · 2024-12-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.12For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the September 25, 2024 Joint Order Vacating Submission to Develop the Record and Setting Matter for Status Conference is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the September 25, 2024 Joint Order Vacating Submission to Develop the Record and Setting Matter for Status Conference is RESCINDED and that the matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The WCJ's order vacating submission due to alleged ex parte communication was rescinded because the record was insufficient to evaluate the issue and applicant was entitled to a hearing before the report was struck.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ10151836 · 2024-06-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.

The order compelling attendance at a QME evaluation is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration is dismissed; removal is granted due to lack of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, causing irreparable harm.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ15371062 · 2024-04-12 · Los Angeles 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 demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15107350 · 2023-01-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,

Removal granted due to lack of evidentiary record and procedural due process violations in the WCJ's Order compelling in-person deposition attendance during the pandemic.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12712852 · 2022-11-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 23, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

The petition was timely filed but was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to dismissal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ174134 · 2022-02-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the Appeals Board failed to act on defendant's petition within 60 days of its filing on September 10, 2021, through no fault of defendant. Therefore, considering that the Appeals Board's failure to act on the petition was in error, we find that our time to act was tolled.

The Appeals Board failed to act on the defendant's petition within 60 days through no fault of the defendant, so the time to act was tolled based on due process principles from Shipley.

Official decision · page 2 →