California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Bryan K. Leiser

Law Offices of Bryan K. Leiser is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2018–2025. The disputes run to QME/AME process (2) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2). They were heard most often at Fresno. The firm it meets most often is Albert and Mackenzie (1).

Decisions: 7
Years: 2018–2025
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 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.

Who they face

2 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

Fresno 7

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.

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

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ10675931 · 2025-06-18 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5On this record, we discern no violation of our Rules or other statutory prohibition that would preclude the QME's review of sub rosa video. Accordingly, we will grant defendant's petition, rescind the F&O, and substitute a new finding of fact that defendant may submit the surveillance video dated December 1, 2022, December 9, 2022, December 14, 2022, February 16, 2023, February 21, 2023, and February 22, 2023, to QME Dr. Oehlschlaeger.
The WCAB found no violation of rules or statutes precluding submission of sub rosa video to the QME and concluded defendant complied with the procedural requirements, warranting granting the petition for removal and allowing submission of the video.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ16964158 · 2024-09-10 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 19, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant on September 26, 2022, applicant sustained injury and that "the parts of body injured are not at issue for this trial"; that a nurse practitioner's report constitutes a valid Primary Treatment Physician (PTP) report; that defendant filed a valid objection letter to the determination of the primary treating physician; and that after the strike process, the remaining doctor will serve as the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME).
Applicant challenged the validity of the nurse practitioner's PTP report and defendant's objection letter; the WCJ found the objection valid and the Appeals Board denied removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10540177 · 2022-04-25 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.12For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we agree that the opinion of treating physician Lonnie Powell, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion "must be predicated on reasonable medical probability." (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).) We observe, moreover, it is well-established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with other medical opinions. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].)
The panel found the medical opinions of primary treating physician Dr. Powell to constitute substantial medical evidence, properly relied upon by the WCJ, despite conflicting opinions from the PQME Dr. Xeller, whose opinions were found unreliable and not substantial.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ9013590 · 2018-10-23 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processremanded
Determinative passage · p.201 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Removal of the Workers' Compensation
The Board found the WCJ's findings regarding ex parte communication and the remedy were not final orders and that removal, not reconsideration, was the proper procedural avenue. The matter was remanded for the trier of fact to determine if there was an ex parte communication and the appropriate remedy.
Official decision · page 20 →
ADJ9046738 · 2025-10-03 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10Although we have preliminarily considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the WCJ's Report, and the record in this matter, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed on one or more of the above issues, including whether there was a timely made and timely communicated UR determination for each of Dr. Foxley's RFAs, and if not, how the MTUS applies to each specific request for treatment. Accordingly, taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petitions, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Thereafter, a final decision after reconsideration will be issued by the Appeals Board, from which any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 et seq.
The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record due to unresolved factual and legal issues regarding utilization review and medical necessity.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ11404924 · 2023-03-10 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, Cypress Insurance Company, filed a timely Petition for Removal of two pre- trial orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 30, 2021, whereby the WCJ denied defendant's request for continued discovery and ordered the matter set for trial. Defendant contends that it was denied due process by the WCJ's decision to close discovery and move forward with trial.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying further discovery and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to final decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13891084 · 2022-01-04 · Fresno 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 removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
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 Offices of Bryan K. Leiser
LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN K. LEISER
LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN LEISER
LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN LEISER

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 Offices of Bryan K. Leiser

Decisions

Years

2018–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the defense

2 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ10675931 · 2025-06-18 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5On this record, we discern no violation of our Rules or other statutory prohibition that would preclude the QME's review of sub rosa video. Accordingly, we will grant defendant's petition, rescind the F&O, and substitute a new finding of fact that defendant may submit the surveillance video dated December 1, 2022, December 9, 2022, December 14, 2022, February 16, 2023, February 21, 2023, and February 22, 2023, to QME Dr. Oehlschlaeger.

The WCAB found no violation of rules or statutes precluding submission of sub rosa video to the QME and concluded defendant complied with the procedural requirements, warranting granting the petition for removal and allowing submission of the video.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ16964158 · 2024-09-10 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 19, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant on September 26, 2022, applicant sustained injury and that "the parts of body injured are not at issue for this trial"; that a nurse practitioner's report constitutes a valid Primary Treatment Physician (PTP) report; that defendant filed a valid objection letter to the determination of the primary treating physician; and that after the strike process, the remaining doctor will serve as the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME).

Applicant challenged the validity of the nurse practitioner's PTP report and defendant's objection letter; the WCJ found the objection valid and the Appeals Board denied removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10540177 · 2022-04-25 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.12For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we agree that the opinion of treating physician Lonnie Powell, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion "must be predicated on reasonable medical probability." (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).) We observe, moreover, it is well-established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with other medical opinions. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].)

The panel found the medical opinions of primary treating physician Dr. Powell to constitute substantial medical evidence, properly relied upon by the WCJ, despite conflicting opinions from the PQME Dr. Xeller, whose opinions were found unreliable and not substantial.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ9013590 · 2018-10-23 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

Determinative passage · p.201 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Removal of the Workers' Compensation

The Board found the WCJ's findings regarding ex parte communication and the remedy were not final orders and that removal, not reconsideration, was the proper procedural avenue. The matter was remanded for the trier of fact to determine if there was an ex parte communication and the appropriate remedy.

Official decision · page 20 →

ADJ9046738 · 2025-10-03 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10Although we have preliminarily considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the WCJ's Report, and the record in this matter, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed on one or more of the above issues, including whether there was a timely made and timely communicated UR determination for each of Dr. Foxley's RFAs, and if not, how the MTUS applies to each specific request for treatment. Accordingly, taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petitions, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Thereafter, a final decision after reconsideration will be issued by the Appeals Board, from which any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 et seq.

The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record due to unresolved factual and legal issues regarding utilization review and medical necessity.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ11404924 · 2023-03-10 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, Cypress Insurance Company, filed a timely Petition for Removal of two pre- trial orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 30, 2021, whereby the WCJ denied defendant's request for continued discovery and ordered the matter set for trial. Defendant contends that it was denied due process by the WCJ's decision to close discovery and move forward with trial.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying further discovery and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to final decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13891084 · 2022-01-04 · Fresno 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 removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →