Law Offices of Jesse Marino, APC

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Apportionment3
• Jurisdiction / venue2
• Permanent disability rating2
• Statute of limitations2
• Earnings / average weekly earnings1
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 8
• Anaheim 3
• Marina del Rey 1
• Riverside 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.

• 8 for the applicant
• 4 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 13 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.

• ADJ11373827 · 2024-07-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Defendant objects to Applicant's Exhibits 1 through 5 contending lack of foundation, authentication of those documents, identification of those documents, and defendant's due process rights to cross-examine the recipients of the text messages. Applicant's Exhibits 1 through 5 will be marked for identification and their admissibility will be ruled on at the time of the Finding and Decision. (Minutes of Hearing, October 24, 2023, p. 3.) Then, on January 18, 2024, the WCJ issued the disputed F&O, specifically finding: "Applicant's exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are admissible over Defendant's objection and are given the appropriate weight," and explained the reasons for his decision in the corresponding Opinion on Decision. (F&O, January 18, 2024, p. 2; Opinion on Decision, January 18, 2024, pp. 3-5.)

  The WCJ overruled defendant's objections after trial, finding applicant's exhibits admissible and properly authenticated, and the panel found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9589869 · 2024-06-20 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8The alleged injury in this matter is a bacterial infection. The parties have litigated this case as if they were litigating a direct occupational disease. A direct occupational disease occurs where the injured worker's point of infection can be established through evidence. Here, no such evidence is in the record, and it does not appear that such evidence exists. As neither party can establish the direct cause of the bacterial infection, the appropriate legal standard in this case is whether the infection meets the causation threshold for nonoccupational disease per Latourette. (Ibid.) Where it is impossible to pinpoint the direct cause of an infection, we must determine whether applicant's occupational duties exposed applicant to an increased risk of acquiring the infection to that of the general public. (Ibid.) This question was not presented to any of the doctors. Accordingly, the record requires development.

  The record lacks evidence to establish the direct cause of the bacterial infection as industrial injury; the case is remanded for further development to determine if applicant's occupational duties increased risk of infection.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ15383863 · 2023-10-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant contends that the opinions of orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Ramy Elias, M.D., as stated in his January 23, 2023 report, are substantial evidence that 80% of applicant's right knee permanent partial disability is the result of pre-existing degenerative changes, and based thereon applicant is entitled to an award of 2% permanent partial disability, after apportionment.

  Dr. Elias's opinion on 80% apportionment to preexisting degenerative changes was not substantial evidence because he failed to explain the nature and impact of the degenerative disease, so defendant did not meet burden of proof for apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11997202 · 2023-03-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 23, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the Application for Adjudication of Claim (Application) was filed on January 9, 2019, more than five years after the date of injury, and that applicant's claim is barred by the five-year limitations period defined in Labor Code section 5410.3

  The WCAB found that the applicant's claim was timely filed within the tolled one-year limitations period under Labor Code section 5405 due to defendant's failure to provide required notices, which tolled the statute until the applicant gained actual knowledge of his rights. The five-year limitation under section 5410 did not apply as the injury claim was not previously resolved and no petition to reopen was filed.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ3108970 · 2023-02-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.4Marshalls, supra, at 621) Further, it is important to note that "the percentage to which an applicant's injury is causally related to his or her employment is not necessarily the same as the percentage to which an applicant's permanent disability is causally related to his or her injury. The analyses of these issues are different and the medical evidence for any percentage conclusions might be different." (Ibid. at 611.) Here, in his December 27, 2010, report, as quoted above, Dr. Nathan concluded that 66- 2/3% of applicant's psychiatric permanent disability was a result of his industrial orthopedic injury and 33-1/3% of his psychiatric disability was a result of his psychopathology "due to his personality functioning, his prior history of Alcohol Abuse and Dependence." (Def. Exh. C, p. 24.) Dr. Nathan did not explain how and why applicant's employment with defendant and his pre- existing alcohol abuse were causing his permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, nor did he explain how and why those factors were responsible for the percentage of disability he assigned. Thus, his reports are not substantial evidence regarding the issue of permanent disability/ apportionment and cannot be the basis for determining applicant's psychiatric disability caused by his industrial injury.

  Dr. Nathan's reports were found not substantial evidence for psychiatric disability apportionment because he did not explain how employment and pre-existing conditions caused the disability percentages assigned.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9310145 · 2022-08-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, applicant was employed as a laborer on October 4, 2011, and defendant stipulated to that applicant was employed on that date and that his occupational variant was 360. Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10835; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The stipulation that applicant's occupational variant is 360 has not been disputed. As applicant's specific injury occurred on October 4, 2011, and his cumulative trauma injury began on October 4, 2011, applicant is entitled to the higher group number. We note that the assignment of the higher occupational group does not change the recommended permanent disability rating.

  The parties stipulated that applicant's occupational variant for the specific injury on October 4, 2011 was 360, and the Board found applicant entitled to the higher group number for the cumulative trauma period as well.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11997202 · 2022-01-31 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 23, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the Application for Adjudication of Claim (Application) was filed on January 9, 2019, more than five years after the date of injury, and that applicant's claim is barred by the five-year limitations period defined in Labor Code section 5410.1

  The Appeals Board found that the Application was timely filed within the previously tolled Labor Code section 5405 one year limitations period, thus the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9053614 · 2021-06-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Labor Code section 4663(a) provides that "[a]pportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation." (Lab. Code, § 4663(a).) Section 4664(a) states that "[t]he employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by the injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment." (Lab. Code, § 4664(a).) The defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1114 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the report, we agree that defendant did not meet that burden here.

  The panel QME's apportionment opinion was found not to be substantial medical evidence because it was speculative, inadequately explained, and inconsistent with the medical record and principles of apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15894624 · 2025-12-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on September 26, 2025, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7676073 · 2025-01-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on October 14, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition for reconsideration, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17607195 · 2024-09-27 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  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 JESSE A. MARINO
• LAW OFFICES OF JESSE MARINO, APC
• LAW OFFICES OF JESSE A. MARINO, APC
• Law Offices of Jesse Marino, APC
• Law Offices of Jesse Marino
• LAW OFFICES OF JESSE MARINO
• LAW OFFICE OF JESSE MARINO

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.