Law Offices of Brian T. Riley

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Permanent disability rating1

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 2
• Anaheim 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 2 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record
• 1 for the applicant

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.

• ADJ19406087 · 2026-02-03 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed on May 23, 2024 as a driver, at Irvine, California, sustained injury arising out of in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his left eye, left side of face, head, neck, left arm, chest, left shoulder, and injury in the form of a concussion with all other body parts deferred. The WCJ further found that the treatment request for continual care at Casa Colina is reasonable and necessary, and that defendant has not provided evidence of a change in applicant's condition or circumstances that show that applicant's treatment at Casa Colina is no longer reasonably required. Additionally, the WCJ found that applicant does not have the burden of being required to provide a new Request for Authorization (RFA), and that defendant failed to meet the requirements of Labor Code Section 4610(i)(4)(C)1 and Title 8, California Code of Regulations 9792.9.1(e)(6). Applicant was awarded further medical treatment at Casa Colina.

  The WCJ found the treatment request reasonable and necessary and that defendant failed to show a change in condition or meet statutory requirements for denial. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the merits and statutory law.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7037201 · 2024-12-06 · Marina Del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2Pursuant to Findings and Award issued on May 22, 2013, applicant sustained injury to his psyche, cardiovascular system (in the form of hypertension), cervical-thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and in the form of sleep disorder and sexual dysfunction while employed as a police officer by defendant City of Baldwin Park from May 13, 2002 to November 20, 2009. Applicant's injuries resulted in temporary total disability from November 20, 2009 to May 13, 2011, and thereafter in permanent partial disability of 83 percent. (Findings and Award and Order Following Remand After Reconsideration, dated May 22, 2013.)

  The WCJ's finding of 100% permanent and total disability was initially supported by additive approach medical opinions, but the WCAB found the record incomplete under the en banc Vigil and Nunes decisions requiring further analysis of ADLs and valid medical apportionment. The WCAB rescinded the award and remanded for further proceedings and record development.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11815084 · 2021-04-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7This testimony is inconsistent with all of his previous statements that since he was not provided any material safety data sheets, he used the presumption in reaching his conclusion regarding the cause of applicant's cancer. Dr. Miller's application of the Labor Code section 3212.1 firefighter/police officer presumption is clear evidence that his conclusion regarding injury AOE/COE is based on an incorrect legal theory.

  Dr. Miller's medical opinion was not substantial evidence because it relied on an inapplicable legal presumption and was speculative; record requires further development.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ18488100 · 2025-01-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the WCJ's decision of October 7, 2024 is RESCINDED and this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ.

  The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration because it acted timely within the 60-day period after transmission of the case to the Appeals Board, as required by Labor Code section 5909.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ17206124 · 2023-06-21 · Anaheim 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →

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.