Law Offices of Kaplan & Boldy

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 5
• Van Nuys 4
• Oakland 2
• San Diego 2
• Anaheim 1
• Los Angeles Office 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• San Bernardino 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.

• 10 for the defense
• 6 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 17 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.

• ADJ12142181 · 2026-03-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On December 10, 2021, the WCJ issued her decision, determining in relevant part that applicant did not sustain his evidentiary burden of establishing injury AOE/COE occurring on February 20, 2019. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) In the accompanying Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that medical records in evidence from applicant's treating physician Dr. Fisher indicated an initial visit date of February 14, 2019, and that applicant testified that he had seen Dr. Fisher on the day following the specific injury. The WCJ observed that this date was inconsistent with the date provided by applicant to subsequent evaluating physicians. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 3-4.) The WCJ observed that payroll records demonstrate that applicant was not working on February 13, 2019, which would have been the day preceding his initial visit with Dr. Fisher. Because the history applicant provided to his evaluating physicians regarding the date of injury was not consistent with his trial testimony, the WCJ concluded that applicant had not met his

  The Board found the WCJ's credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence, including inconsistencies in applicant's testimony and medical and payroll records, and thus affirmed the denial of injury AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16041060 · 2025-12-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4A. Defendant seeks to have us read section 4610 as providing that the time to complete UR does not start until a body part dispute is resolved and applicant resends the original or new RFA to defendant. We decline to do so. As relevant here, section 4610 provides "[u]tilization review of a treatment recommendation shall not be required while the employer is disputing liability for injury or treatment of the condition for which treatment is recommended pursuant to Section 4062." (Lab. Code § 4610(l).) Further: (m) If utilization review is deferred pursuant to subdivision (l), and it is finally determined that the employer is liable for treatment of the condition for which treatment is recommended, the time for the employer to conduct retrospective utilization review in accordance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) shall begin on the date the determination of the employer's liability becomes final, and the time for the employer to conduct prospective utilization review shall commence from the date of the employer's receipt of a treatment recommendation after the determination of the employer's liability.

  The Appeals Board found the utilization review decision untimely because the time to conduct utilization review commenced on the date liability was determined (May 7, 2025), and the defendant issued the decision on May 15, 2025, exceeding the five business day limit.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11930717 · 2025-10-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued on February 19, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which denied applicant's request for an additional qualified medical evaluator (QME) in internal medicine.

  Applicant showed good cause for an additional QME panel in internal medicine because the current QME stated the claim of injury (diabetes) is outside their expertise, constituting substantial prejudice and irreparable harm if removal was not granted.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11644994 · 2024-11-22 · San Bernardino District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5*** Based on the evidence as a whole, the undersigned finds Citywide has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the copying services at Glendale Eye Medical Group, Concentra Urgent Care and Loma Linda University Medical Group were done to prove or disprove a contested component of applicant's claim.

  The WCJ found that the cost petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the copy services were done to prove or disprove a contested component of the claim, and that the claim was not contested at the time the services were performed. The WCAB granted reconsideration but deferred final decision pending further review.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ17277232 · 2024-05-02 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.5liable for applicant's self-procured medical treatment outside defendant's Medical Provider Network. 2. The issue of whether defendant is liable to lien claimant, Medland Medical, for a medical-legal evaluation and any associated medical-legal expenses is deferred.

  The issue of liability for medical-legal evaluation expenses was not decided and deferred for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10746901 · 2024-04-11 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2F&O except that we will amend the F&O to find that the report from Michael D. Smith, M.D., is substantial evidence that applicant is in need of and is entitled to the left hip surgery as a diagnostic procedure (Finding of Fact #4); that Michael D. Smith, M.D., cannot address the medical need for the left hip surgery on an industrial basis (Finding of Fact #5); and that the report from Michael D. Smith, M.D., may not be sent to QME, Dr. Charles Roland for his review (Finding of Fact #6).

  The MPN-IMR physician's report is substantial evidence for the need for left hip surgery as a diagnostic procedure, but the MPN-IMR physician cannot address causation or medical necessity on an industrial basis, and the report may not be sent to the QME for review.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11662102 · 2023-10-09 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Clearly, the cover letter of January 19, 2023 to the QME for the reevaluation set on January 23, 2023 was not served on the defendant twenty days in advance of the evaluation as required by Labor Code Section 4062.3. Sections 4062.3(b) and (e) are mandatory as each party "shall" comply with service of both information and communications intended for the QME twenty days in advance of the evaluation. The plain reading of the statute requires strict application. Applicant's cover letter, served on defendant on January 19, 2023 after close of business for the evaluation date of January 23, 2023 was in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3. Defendant's objection dated January 30, 2023, was within ten calendar days of the first service of applicant's cover letter and is timely and valid.

  The Appeals Board found that although the applicant violated the 20-day service requirement under Labor Code section 4062.3, the defendant was not prejudiced to a degree warranting a replacement QME panel, considering the Suon factors and the long involvement of Dr. Blackwell as QME.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14629670 · 2023-05-15 · San Diego District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 17, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her psyche and stress and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.1

  The WCJ's original decision was rescinded due to lack of evidentiary record and procedural due process concerns; the matter was remanded for further proceedings to develop the record and clarify employment duration and injury date.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11525434 · 2023-01-12 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In the instant case, the applicant was first put on compensable TD on February 23, 2018 when her personal physician, Dr. Nerenberg took her off work for work related stress. (Applicant's Exhibit 7). Dr. Nerenberg completed an EDD form certifying her for disability benefits and took her off work due to "extremely anxious, depressed affect, panic attacks, insomnia, fatigue, concentration and memory impairments, failure to enjoy life, extremely worried" and he indicated this disabling condition is caused and/or aggravated by work. (Applicant's Exhibit 7, pages 48-50, 59). Based on the medical evidence submitted, this was the first indication we have that she suffered disability and knew that her disability was caused by her work. In other words, the concurrence of disability and knowledge that her symptoms were work related occurred on February 23, 2018. Thus, the date of injury as defined by § 5412 is February 23, 2018.

  The date of injury was found to be February 23, 2018, the first date of compensable temporary disability and knowledge of work-related disability, with the cumulative trauma period defined as February 23, 2017 to February 23, 2018 per Labor Code Section 5500.5.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12629307 · 2022-03-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 22, 2021 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed by defendant from June 15, 2016 through October 10, 2019, did not sustain injury arising out of or in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.

  The WCJ's original Findings and Order found no injury AOE/COE and barred the claim post-termination under LC Section 3600(a)(10), but the WCAB found the medical-legal reporting incomplete and inconsistent, requiring further development of the record and a new decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15763825 · 2025-09-16 · Los Angeles Office District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

  The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within 60 days of case transmission and found no grounds to overturn the WCJ's findings and award.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16588879 · 2025-04-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on removal, the parties entered into a Compromise & Release. Therefore, the Petition for Removal in response to the decision issued on April 26, 2024 is moot, and it will be dismissed.

  The parties entered into a Compromise & Release while the Petition for Removal was pending, rendering the petition moot.

  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 KAPLAN & BOLDY
• LAW OFFICES OF HARRIGAN POLAN KAPLAN AND BOLDY
• Law Offices of Kaplan & Boldy
• KAPLAN & BOLDY
• LAW OFFICES OF HARRIGAN, POLAN, KAPLAN & BOLDY
• LAW OFFICES OF HARRIGAN POLAN KAPLAN & BOLDY
• Harrigan, Polan, Kaplan & Boldy
• Harrigan Polan Kaplan & Boldy
• KAPLAN BOLDY LAW
• KAPLAN BOLDY

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.