California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Moises Vazquez

Law Offices of Moises Vazquez is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Psyche AOE/COE (2), AOE/COE (1) and Earnings / average weekly earnings (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then San Bernardino. The firm it meets most often is England, Ponticello & St. Clair (1).

Decisions: 9
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 of 7 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.

Who they face

2 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Los Angeles 7
San Bernardino 1
Santa Barbara 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.

3 for the applicant
3 returned for more record
2 for the defense

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ12994950 · 2026-02-12 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 11, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to the right knee and left shoulder on November 30, 2011, and that her claim is barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to Labor Code2 section 5405.
Defendant failed to provide required notices under Rule 9812 and misled applicant, causing delay in filing; thus, defendant is estopped from raising statute of limitations defense.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11110973 · 2025-05-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeSJDB voucherdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 15, 2023 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to an additional payment from the Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) because applicant received an earlier RTWSP in connection with a prior injury after the date of the instant injury from which applicant is claiming RTWSP benefits. Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent RTWSP payment "except where the individual receives a [Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB)] Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302(b).)
The Board found that Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second RTWSP payment unless the individual receives a subsequent SJDB Voucher for a later injury, and the applicant did not meet this requirement. The Board also held that the applicant's remedy to challenge the regulation's validity lies in Superior Court, not the Appeals Board.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10561152 · 2023-12-05 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 11, 2023 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his neck, upper extremities, back, right arm, right wrist, left wrist, left shoulder, right shoulder, bladder, colon, upper digestive tract, and injury in form of hypertension while employed as a city manager during the period between April 30, 2014 to April 30, 2015 (ADJ10561152 (MF)), during the period between April 7, 2014 to April 15, 2015 (ADJ10561411), and on July 13, 2016 (ADJ10562671), causing 60% permanent disability. In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that "there are no increases in impairment rating for psychiatric impairment arising out of a compensable physical injury, with exceptions for violent acts and catastrophic injury, including loss of limb, paralysis, severe burn head injury. Based on the reporting of [Howard Greils, M.D.] (Joint Exhibits E, F, G, H and I), the Applicant's condition is a result of physical injury and thus pursuant to labor code no increase in rating impairment." (Opinion on Decision, at p. 4.)
The WCJ found no compensability for psychiatric injury based on physical injury exceptions, but the WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the compensability of psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 3208.3 and relevant case law, noting the need for further development of the record and legal analysis.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13400126 · 2023-08-04 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a petition seeking reconsideration, or, alternatively, removal, of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision (F&O) of May 10, 2023, wherein it was found that, while employed as a plant supervisor between the period June 6, 2019 to March 13, 2020, applicant experienced five actual events of employment that may have contributed to his alleged psychiatric injury (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1)), that three of said events were lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(h)), and that two of the events contained some non-industrial factors that contributed to applicant's "psychiatric diagnosis." The WCJ also ordered the parties to serve the panel qualified medial evaluator (QME), psychologist Kevin J. McCullough, Ph.D., with the Minutes of Hearing and Summaries of Evidence (MOH/SOEs) produced during trial, and ordered Dr. McCullough to issue a supplemental medical-legal report determining: 1) whether applicant had a psychiatric diagnosis under the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, and, if so, 2) whether applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by industrial or non-industrial factors.
The WCJ did not properly apply the Rolda analysis sequence, particularly failing to establish industrial causation before addressing lawful personnel actions, leading to rescission and remand for proper application and further development of the record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3482353 · 2022-03-02 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Marlene the applicant (applicant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 23, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his psyche, renal system, and in the form of chronic hypertension, and that the injury caused 73% permanent disability, entitling the applicant to be paid permanent disability indemnity for the period from September 17, 2017, through January 17, 2019.
The Appeals Board found substantial evidence from AME Dr. Hirsch and QME Dr. Marusak that the applicant's condition was permanent and stationary as of September 10, 2012, and that the injury caused 95% permanent disability, with no overlap in impairments justifying additive rating rather than combined values chart.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13905695 · 2022-01-21 · San Bernardino District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Here, our review of the record indicates that defendant offered applicant modified work on September 28, 2020. (Def. Exh. H, Transcript of Proceedings pp. 13 § 15.) However, the offer of modified work is not clear as to the actual nature of the work being offered or the physical demands of that work. Also, the document stated that the modified work was being offered effective September 27, 2020, and that the offer would be re-evaluated and updated on September 30, 2020, the date of applicant's next doctor's appointment. (MOH/SOE, p. 7; Transcript of Proceedings p. 13.) The record contains no evidence that there was a subsequent "updated" offer of modified work.
The record lacks substantial evidence regarding the nature and physical demands of the modified work offered, any updated offers, and whether applicant timely objected to the work restrictions or discussed pain with physicians, thus the issue of entitlement to temporary disability indemnity for the period September 25, 2020 to April 27, 2021 is deferred for further development.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ8111377 · 2021-03-05 · Los Angeles 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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 show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
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 MOISES VAZQUEZ
MOISES VAZQUEZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW
LAW OFFICE OF MOISES VAZQUEZ
MOISES VAZQUEZ, ESQ.

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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Law Offices of Moises Vazquez

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

3 returned for more record

2 for the defense

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ12994950 · 2026-02-12 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 11, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to the right knee and left shoulder on November 30, 2011, and that her claim is barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to Labor Code2 section 5405.

Defendant failed to provide required notices under Rule 9812 and misled applicant, causing delay in filing; thus, defendant is estopped from raising statute of limitations defense.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11110973 · 2025-05-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeSJDB voucherdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 15, 2023 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to an additional payment from the Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) because applicant received an earlier RTWSP in connection with a prior injury after the date of the instant injury from which applicant is claiming RTWSP benefits. Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent RTWSP payment "except where the individual receives a [Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB)] Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302(b).)

The Board found that Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second RTWSP payment unless the individual receives a subsequent SJDB Voucher for a later injury, and the applicant did not meet this requirement. The Board also held that the applicant's remedy to challenge the regulation's validity lies in Superior Court, not the Appeals Board.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10561152 · 2023-12-05 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 11, 2023 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his neck, upper extremities, back, right arm, right wrist, left wrist, left shoulder, right shoulder, bladder, colon, upper digestive tract, and injury in form of hypertension while employed as a city manager during the period between April 30, 2014 to April 30, 2015 (ADJ10561152 (MF)), during the period between April 7, 2014 to April 15, 2015 (ADJ10561411), and on July 13, 2016 (ADJ10562671), causing 60% permanent disability. In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that "there are no increases in impairment rating for psychiatric impairment arising out of a compensable physical injury, with exceptions for violent acts and catastrophic injury, including loss of limb, paralysis, severe burn head injury. Based on the reporting of [Howard Greils, M.D.] (Joint Exhibits E, F, G, H and I), the Applicant's condition is a result of physical injury and thus pursuant to labor code no increase in rating impairment." (Opinion on Decision, at p. 4.)

The WCJ found no compensability for psychiatric injury based on physical injury exceptions, but the WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the compensability of psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 3208.3 and relevant case law, noting the need for further development of the record and legal analysis.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13400126 · 2023-08-04 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a petition seeking reconsideration, or, alternatively, removal, of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision (F&O) of May 10, 2023, wherein it was found that, while employed as a plant supervisor between the period June 6, 2019 to March 13, 2020, applicant experienced five actual events of employment that may have contributed to his alleged psychiatric injury (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1)), that three of said events were lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(h)), and that two of the events contained some non-industrial factors that contributed to applicant's "psychiatric diagnosis." The WCJ also ordered the parties to serve the panel qualified medial evaluator (QME), psychologist Kevin J. McCullough, Ph.D., with the Minutes of Hearing and Summaries of Evidence (MOH/SOEs) produced during trial, and ordered Dr. McCullough to issue a supplemental medical-legal report determining: 1) whether applicant had a psychiatric diagnosis under the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, and, if so, 2) whether applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by industrial or non-industrial factors.

The WCJ did not properly apply the Rolda analysis sequence, particularly failing to establish industrial causation before addressing lawful personnel actions, leading to rescission and remand for proper application and further development of the record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3482353 · 2022-03-02 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Marlene the applicant (applicant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 23, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his psyche, renal system, and in the form of chronic hypertension, and that the injury caused 73% permanent disability, entitling the applicant to be paid permanent disability indemnity for the period from September 17, 2017, through January 17, 2019.

The Appeals Board found substantial evidence from AME Dr. Hirsch and QME Dr. Marusak that the applicant's condition was permanent and stationary as of September 10, 2012, and that the injury caused 95% permanent disability, with no overlap in impairments justifying additive rating rather than combined values chart.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13905695 · 2022-01-21 · San Bernardino District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Here, our review of the record indicates that defendant offered applicant modified work on September 28, 2020. (Def. Exh. H, Transcript of Proceedings pp. 13 § 15.) However, the offer of modified work is not clear as to the actual nature of the work being offered or the physical demands of that work. Also, the document stated that the modified work was being offered effective September 27, 2020, and that the offer would be re-evaluated and updated on September 30, 2020, the date of applicant's next doctor's appointment. (MOH/SOE, p. 7; Transcript of Proceedings p. 13.) The record contains no evidence that there was a subsequent "updated" offer of modified work.

The record lacks substantial evidence regarding the nature and physical demands of the modified work offered, any updated offers, and whether applicant timely objected to the work restrictions or discussed pain with physicians, thus the issue of entitlement to temporary disability indemnity for the period September 25, 2020 to April 27, 2021 is deferred for further development.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ8111377 · 2021-03-05 · Los Angeles 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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 show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →