California WCABLaw firm
Law Offices of Godfrey, Godfrey, Lamb & Ortega
Law Offices of Godfrey, Godfrey, Lamb & Ortega is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2024. The disputes run to Temporary disability (2), Psyche AOE/COE (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Riverside. The firm it meets most often is Law Offices of Sef Krell (3).
- Decisions
- 9
- Years
- 2021–2024
- Issues disputed
- 5
- District offices
- 4
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 6 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.
2 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 8 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.
- ADJ11799924 · 2022-11-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5(c) (1) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after April 19, 2004, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of two years from the date of commencement of temporary disability payment. (2) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after January 1, 2008, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of five years from the date of injury. (3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), for an employee who suffers from the following injuries or conditions, aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after April 19, 2004, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 240 compensable weeks within a period of five years from the date of the injury: (A) Acute and chronic hepatitis B. (B) Acute and chronic hepatitis C. (C) Amputations. (D) Severe burns. (E) Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). (F) High-velocity eye injuries. (G) Chemical burns to the eyes. (H) Pulmonary fibrosis. (I) Chronic lung disease.
The applicant sustained a high-velocity eye injury caused by a high velocity impact to his person, resulting in ongoing temporary total disability and entitlement to up to 240 weeks of temporary disability under the statute exception.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ12560810 · 2021-11-22 · Riverside District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 9, 2021, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain a psychiatric injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE).
Dr. Spencer's reports and testimony were found not to be substantial evidence due to incomplete medical records and inadequate examination. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record and obtain a supplemental report from Dr. Spencer.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ9115204 · 2021-02-09 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Under the circumstances here, we agree with the WCJ that defendant unreasonably denied agreement to a telehealth evaluation per the emergency regulation. Applicant meets the elements of section 46.2(a)(3) for a telehealth QME evaluation for his internal medicine complaints. We decline to order him to risk his health and the health of his household, in addition to potentially other members of the public, to attend an in-person evaluation with Dr. Omrani.
The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant unreasonably denied agreement to a telehealth evaluation under emergency regulation section 46.2, considering the applicant's health concerns and the QME's written attestation that a physical exam was not required.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ14111346 · 2024-06-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On May 10, 2024, defendant LA PILLOW & FIBER, insured by SIRIUSPOINT AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, filed a Petition for Removal regarding the April 15, 2024 Minute Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). On June 6, 2024, the WCJ issued an Order of Dismissal of Party Defendant dismissing petitioner without prejudice. Due to this development, it appears the Petition for Removal is moot and will be dismissed.
The WCJ dismissed the petitioner without prejudice, making the Petition for Removal moot, so the WCAB panel dismissed the petition accordingly.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ2618433 · 2024-04-08 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Decision) issued on February 28, 2024, by the Appeals Board. In the Opinion portion of our Decision, in pertinent part, we admonished applicant's attorney, Juan Armenta of English Lloyd & Armenta, that as an officer of the court, he may not include material misstatements of fact in verified petitions before a court and that such conduct may subject him to sanctions. (See § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.)
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the admonishment was not a final order, decision, or award subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ11799924 · 2023-10-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issuedeferred
Determinative passage · p.8Here, the issue of the appropriate basis for the calculation of attorney's fees, including the application of SAWW and/or the present value discount was not framed with specificity at the time of trial. Accordingly, the record does not adequately address the interaction, if any, between the statutorily mandated present value reduction set forth in section 5101, and the inclusion of SAWW adjustments per section 4659(c) in the calculation of attorney's fees. Nor does the record address the concomitant public policy considerations inherent in the arguments for present value reduction versus attorney fee adjustments made pursuant to COLA. We believe that a complete record under section 5701 and Hamilton, supra, requires further explication of these issues.
The record did not adequately address the interaction between the present value discount and SAWW adjustments in attorney fees calculation, requiring further development; thus, the issue was deferred.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ10421972 · 2022-10-25 · San Francisco 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 found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.
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.
- GODFREY, GODFREY, LAMB & ORTEGA
- Law Offices of Godfrey, Godfrey, Lamb & Ortega
- LAW OFFICE OF GODFREY, GODFREY, LAMB & ORTEGA
- GODFREY GODFREY LAMB & ORTEGA
- GODFREY, GODFREY & LAMB
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.