Law Offices of Mark a. Slipock

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue4
• AOE/COE2
• Permanent disability rating2
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 7
• San Diego 3

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.

• 5 for the defense
• 4 for the applicant

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.

• ADJ8124831 · 2024-08-06 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendants Great Divide Insurance Company through Berkley Entertainment, on behalf of the Indianapolis Colts (Indianapolis Colts), and Ace American Insurance Company on behalf of the Jacksonville Jaguars (Jacksonville Jaguars) each seek reconsideration of the May 16, 2024 Opinion on Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR), wherein a panel of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from April 15, 2005 to December 1, 2010 by the Indianapolis Colts and the Jacksonville Jaguars claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head, brain, jaw, neck, teeth, back, psyche, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hips, bilateral legs, bilateral arms, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, bilateral wrists, bilateral elbows, bilateral hands, fingers, toes, and sleep disturbance. We found, in relevant part, that the WCAB has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury because applicant was hired in California.

  The WCAB found that the applicant was hired in California, conferring subject matter jurisdiction, and denied the petitions challenging this finding.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8124831 · 2024-05-16 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answers, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the November 18, 2019 F&O and substitute new findings that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury and that all other issues are deferred. We will then return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ.

  The WCAB found that the applicant formed a valid oral contract of hire in California by accepting employment offers while physically present in California, thus conferring subject matter jurisdiction under California law.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ14218009 · 2023-10-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Orders (F&O), issued on August 15, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from June 1, 2010 to March 3, 2012, claims to have sustained industrial injury to the right arm, right elbow and right shoulders. The WCJ determined that applicant was not hired in California, and was not injured in California, and accordingly that there was no subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury.

  The Appeals Board found that the applicant satisfied the requirements of Labor Code section 3600.5(d) for subject matter jurisdiction based on his two-season career with an affiliate of a California-based team, contrary to the WCJ's finding of no jurisdiction.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12937354 · 2023-05-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Relevant facts show that the applicant was hired by the Camden Riversharks in California, when the applicant resided here before and after the contract was signed was signed by parties. Petitioner did not present any evidence that would support an alternative contract formation. California has jurisdiction over a claimed injury if the contract of hire was made here, in California.

  The applicant executed contracts with the defendant in California, establishing sufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction under California law.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10232171 · 2022-03-25 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, and we affirm the F&A including the rating of applicant's disability caused by factors other than that caused by the right knee and left knee injury; and we amend the F&A to defer the issue of the applicant's right and left knee disability; based thereon the issue of applicant's disability caused by the cumulative injury at issue herein is deferred; and the issue of attorney fees is deferred. We amend the Award and Order, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  Because the knee disability issue was deferred, the issue of disability caused by the cumulative injury was also deferred.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ8402781 · 2022-03-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we affirm the F&A except that we amend the F&A to defer the of issues of the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury and the Labor Code section 5500.5 liability period (Finding of Fact 3). Based thereon, we rescind the Amended Award and order that the award of benefits identified in the Amended Findings of Fact is deferred, and we return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The Appeals Board found no substantial evidence to determine the date of injury under LC 5412 or the liability period under LC 5500.5, deferring these issues for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 6 →

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 MARK SLIPOCK
• LAW OFFICES OF MARK SLIPOCK, P.C.
• LAW OFFICES OF MARK SLIPOCK, PC
• MARK SLIPOCK WOODLAND HILLS LAW
• Law Offices of Mark A. Slipock
• Law Offices of Mark Slipock

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.