Littler Mendelson, P.C.

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• San Francisco 6
• Marina del Rey 2
• San Jose 2
• Los Angeles 1
• Pomona 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Stockton 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.

• 9 for the defense
• 5 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 15 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.

• ADJ18355035 · 2025-09-16 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Gordon does note the contribution of the ongoing use of the hand for nearly five years as a police officer and general use. (Defendant's Exhibit B at 15: 23 § 16:4.) As noted by the WCJ, his testimony and reporting is contradictory at moments, but Dr. Gordon still concludes that the current condition is the natural progression of the treatment for the original injury. As a result, the WCJ found the reporting not substantial. We too agree that the report is not substantial. This results in a lack of substantial medical evidence of causation for the current symptoms, which must be addressed before any findings can be made.

  The WCAB found that the AME's report was not substantial evidence to support a finding of cumulative trauma injury, as it was contradictory and did not clearly establish causation for a new injury. The matter was remanded for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ11881346 · 2024-06-25 · Pomona District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant has failed her burden of proving serious and willful misconduct. While we do not condone the conduct of applicant's supervisor in this matter, it does not rise to the level of serious and willful misconduct or the type of "quasi-criminal" conduct described in Mercer, supra. While applicant's perception may be both real and valid, the fact that applicant's perception of her supervisor's conduct caused psychological injury is not sufficient to find that the supervisor intentionally or recklessly caused such injury under the standard articulated in Mercer, supra.

  Applicant failed to prove that the employer's conduct rose to the level of serious and willful misconduct as required by law, despite the stressful work environment and supervisor's behavior.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12075922 · 2023-09-08 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Based on my analysis of the entire record, I find that applicant has met his burden of proof with respect to TTD starting March 11, 2019. In its brief, defendant makes much of the fact that applicant went out for unrelated reasons in September 2018 and began seeking treatment for the knee after exhausting his leave. However, this timeline-and the connotation of ulterior motives it carries- does not outweigh the entirety of the medical evidence in the case, according to which applicant became incapable of performing his job in March 2019, specifically as a result of symptoms in the left knee. There is contemporaneous reporting from Dr. Solomon in exhibit 16, as well as reports from both QMEs in exhibits 13 and 14-all three opined that applicant's left knee symptoms were disabling absent surgical intervention.

  The evidence, including QME reports, treatment records, and credible testimony, supported the finding that applicant was totally temporarily disabled from March 11, 2019, due to his industrial left knee injury, entitling him to TTD indemnity.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ9146501 · 2023-02-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant appears to have played four games in California during the course of his professional career, and also testified to participating in practices during a fifth trip to California, though he did not actually play in that game. Applicant does not appear to contest the WCJ's finding that he played in at least 146 games across his career, each with their own associated practices.3 Therefore, even viewing matters in the light most favorable to applicant, it appears that his total California exposure amounts to at best approximately 3% of his total playing career almost exactly the same percentage as in Johnson, where one game out of 34 also represented roughly 3% of the injury exposure the Johnson Court considered.

  The applicant's cumulative trauma injury exposure in California was only about 3% of his total career, insufficient to establish a significant connection to California for jurisdiction under Johnson, and the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14628369 · 2022-04-25 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued on February 4, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that on April 20, 2021 applicant sustained injuries to various body parts arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) as a "Driving Logistics Associate/Driver" with defendant.

  The WCAB found that applicant's injury occurred within the course of employment under the personal comfort doctrine, based on credible testimony and circumstances of the parking spot swap and motor vehicle collision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11056989 · 2022-01-18 · Stockton District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8After review of the evidence, the Court finds Ratto Law is liable to lien claimant for 60% percent of the attorney fees awarded and received, under the Stipulated Award.

  The WCJ considered the totality of itemizations, descriptions of services, and stipulated periods of representation, finding the division of attorney fees supported by evidence and legal standards.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12221781 · 2021-02-09 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3INTRODUCTION Defendant seeks reconsideration of my November 25, 2020, Findings and Award. Therein, I concluded, inter alia, (1) that applicant's otherwise admitted industrial injury has resulted in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (hereinafter "CRPS") and (2) that the level of permanent partial disability (PPD) arising from the industrial injury is 73 percent. The latter finding formed the basis for the award. On reconsideration, defendant contends that the evidence at trial does not support these two findings because the CRPS diagnosis made by the state-assigned Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) was inconsistent with the fifth edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (hereinafter "AMA Guides"). The petition is timely and appears to be verified. A verified answer has been filed.

  The WCJ found the CRPS diagnosis supported by competent, unrebutted medical evidence including the QME and treating physician, and found the 73% PPD rating supported by substantial evidence based on the QME's impairment calculations and relevant precedent.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ17504620 · 2026-02-03 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant contends that discovery is not yet complete. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal. Removal 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

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant 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 adverse to the defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1703796 · 2025-11-18 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On September 5, 2025, we issued our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Decision). In that Decision, we rescinded the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on January 22, 2021, by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant did not rebut the presumption of receipt of the notice of intention (NIT) or the Order Dismissing and did not show good cause to vacate the September 6, 2016 Order Dismissing. We substituted a new F&O, which found that applicant rebutted the presumption of receipt and that applicant demonstrated good cause to vacate the Order Dismissing her case and ordered that the Petition to Vacate was granted and that the Order Dismissing was rescinded.

  The Board found that applicant rebutted the presumption of mailing of the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and Order Dismissing, and that due process required setting aside the Order Dismissing because applicant did not receive adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1703796 · 2025-09-05 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, applicant credibly testified that she did not receive the NIT. Thus, she was not provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, and as a practical matter, if she did not receive the NIT, she could not object to it. Since the Order Dismissing is premised upon the notice and opportunity to be heard provided by the NIT, the Order is void. Moreover, if applicant did not receive the Order Dismissing, she was not provided with notice and an opportunity to challenge the Order. We also observe that the failure to provide applicant with the requisite due process is in itself good cause to set aside the Order Dismissing.

  Applicant rebutted the presumption of receipt of the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and the Order Dismissing with credible testimony, showing she did not receive the notices. Due process required actual notice and opportunity to be heard, which was not provided, constituting good cause to vacate the Order Dismissing.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10607341 · 2025-04-03 · Van Nuys 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 failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10979852 · 2024-12-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, the WCJ granted applicant's attorney's Petition to be Relieved without issuing an NIT, and without providing applicant with the opportunity to offer evidence in rebuttal or to otherwise object to his attorney's request to be relieved. (9/25/24 MOH; 10/2/24 Order Relieving Counsel.) The WCJ therefore decided the matter in violation of applicant's right to due process and a fair hearing, which caused applicant substantial prejudice and irreparable harm that reconsideration cannot cure.

  The order relieving counsel was interlocutory and not a final order, so reconsideration was improper. However, removal was warranted because the WCJ granted the petition to be relieved without an evidentiary hearing or notice of intention, violating applicant's due process rights.

  Official decision · page 7 →

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.

• LITTLER MENDELSON
• LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
• Littler Mendelson, P.C.
• LITTLER MENDELSON LAW FIRM
• LITTLER MENDELSON FIFTH
• LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
• LITTLER & MENDELSON
• Littler Mendelson

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.