Law Offices of Kargozar & Associates

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE1

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 3
• Los Angeles 2
• Anaheim 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.

• 4 for the defense
• 2 for the applicant

Counted over 6 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.

• ADJ12322911 · 2021-11-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Applicant's testimony needs to be found credible, and it is the applicant who must sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Labor Code § 3202.5 provides in pertinent part that all parties, including the applicant, must meet her evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence in order that all parties are considered equal before the law. A Trier of Fact must weigh all the evidence, including testimony and its credibility, to determine whether there is a sufficient record based upon which a finding of injury could be reached. Garza v. WCAB (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312.

  Applicant's testimony was found not credible and insufficient to prove injury AOE/COE; PQME Dr. Amory's medical-legal report found no injury AOE/COE; WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ21245782 · 2026-01-05 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In the Report, the WCJ explains as follows: Respectfully, defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is premature. Defendants should have filed a Petition to Set Aside the Compromise and Release. At this time there is no record indicating that there was a mutual mistake of fact and the undersigned believes that this matter should be returned to the Judge and the case set for hearing to address if there is good cause to set aside the Compromise and Release. The merits of defendant's arguments cannot be addressed without a record being developed.

  The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because there was no developed record to evaluate the merits of the claim of mutual mistake of fact, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings to develop the record and address whether good cause exists to set aside the OACR.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16511542 · 2023-04-25 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to the November 28, 2022 Order Compelling Applicant's Deposition. Applicant contends the deposition has been rescheduled, that applicant intends to attend the deposition, and that the WCJ's order is unnecessary and a "waste of judicial resources." (Petition for Removal, dated December 8, 2022, at 4:23.)

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's Order Compelling Applicant's Deposition lacked adequate rationale and that removal was warranted due to the absence of good cause for the applicant's failure to attend the initial deposition and procedural deficiencies in the WCJ's order.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9039966 · 2023-03-03 · 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 decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15107350 · 2023-01-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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.,

  Removal granted due to lack of evidentiary record and procedural due process violations in the WCJ's Order compelling in-person deposition attendance during the pandemic.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13508412 · 2022-12-29 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration or Petition for Removal filed on November 23, 2022 and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto.1 Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration, and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's November 8, 2022 Order Rescinding Order was not a final order, and the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  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 KARGOZAR & ASSOCIATES
• Law Offices of Kargozar & Associates
• KARGOZAR & ASSOCIATES

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.