Mavredakis Phillips

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 6
• Los Angeles 1
• Pomona 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.

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

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.

• ADJ13021836 · 2026-06-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration by defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period. In Case No. ADJ20509813, the WCJ found that applicant sustained

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to the excretory and reproductive systems during various employment periods, but the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on settlement approval.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13021836 · 2025-09-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) seeks reconsideration of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period.

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to applicant's excretory and reproductive systems for specific and cumulative trauma periods, supported by credible testimony and medical evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently explained and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9198656 · 2025-07-07 · Santa Barbara District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4To the extent that Zurich also now raises the running of the statute of limitations of section 5405 for the first time, we agree with the PWCJ's observation that the affirmative defense is not timely raised. (Lab. Code, § 5409 ["The running of the period of limitations prescribed by this chapter is an affirmative defense and operates to bar the remedy and not to extinguish the right of the employee. Such defense may be waived. Failure to present such defense prior to the submission of the cause for decision is a sufficient waiver."]; see also Memorial Hospital Assoc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Caldwell) (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 779 (writ denied) [statute of limitations waived by failing to raise the defense at mandatory settlement conference]; Griffith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1265 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 145, 148]) [issue not raised at trial level is waived].) Even were this not the case, we observe that applicant continued to receive authorized medical treatment and indemnity through 2013 when she filed the instant applications. (See, e.g., Ex. 11, report of AME Chester Hasday, M.D., dated November 11, 2019, at pp. 4, 57.) As such, we find Zurich's arguments regarding the applicability of the statute of limitations to be unpersuasive. (See Lab. Code, § 5405(b)-(c).)

  The statute of limitations defense was not timely raised and was waived; the claim is not barred as the applicant continued to receive authorized medical treatment and indemnity through 2013.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13873540 · 2024-08-02 · Los Angeles District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, applicant asserts that she is owed penalties in connection with this settlement; applicant does not otherwise seek to set aside any other terms of the agreement. However, section 5814(c) makes clear that if pending claims for penalties are not specifically excluded in the C&R, then an injured worker is not entitled to them. Applicant's Petition for Penalties was outstanding at the time of the settlement and was not excluded by the terms of the settlement. Thus, once the WCJ approved the C&R, it is presumed that the Petition for Penalties was resolved.

  Section 5814(c) presumes that any accrued claims for penalty are resolved by approval of a C&R unless expressly excluded; applicant's penalty claim was not excluded in the C&R, so it is deemed resolved and not recoverable.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12901263 · 2024-04-08 · Pomona District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3short of reasonable, as it failed to fully account for the time that Arteaga expended on applicant's three-year case, the work that he performed during that time, and results that he obtained on applicant's behalf, which included future medical care and a 54% PD rating. The record also indicates that Arteaga's efforts assisted the parties in settling multiple issues outside of court, including, but not limited to, stipulations as to injury AOE/COE, applicant's PD rating, and P&S date, as well as the use of an AME over a QME. (MOH, April 27, 2023, pp. 2-3; Exh. A2, pp. 94- 96, Joint AME Letter, March 11, 2022.) The 12 percent fee award did not adequately compensate Arteaga for successfully settling these issues; in fact, it was because these issues were settled that the WCJ declined to award Arteaga a higher fee, finding, as noted above, that the trial "essentially had no disputed issues and no witness testimony, allowing for a fairly quick submission on the record, to memorialize the stipulat[ions]...." However, the stipulations reflect competence and

  The 12 percent fee did not fully account for the time expended, work performed, and results obtained by Arteaga, including settling multiple issues and obtaining a 54% PD rating. The Board found a 15 percent fee reasonable.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11599995 · 2024-03-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of December 22, 2023, wherein it was found that while employed as a maintenance worker during a cumulative period ending on June 11 2018, applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her shoulder, back, knees, ankles, feet, and hands. The WCJ thus issued an order that applicant take nothing by way of her workers' compensation claim.1

  The WCJ found no industrial injury and that the Labor Code section 5402(b) presumption was not applicable; the WCJ's findings were adopted by the WCAB panel, which denied reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16974657 · 2024-03-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).)

  The petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision, beyond the allowed time limit, which is jurisdictional and mandatory.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7922408 · 2021-06-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. Defendant, Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford,) petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Awards issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in these cases on May 15, 2020. In those decisions, the WCJ awarded applicant temporary and permanent disability compensation and further medical treatment against Hartford, which had previously stipulated to have provided workers' compensation insurance coverage to the employer Fred Loya Insurance, at the time of applicant's injuries. Hartford contends in its petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not relieving Hartford of its stipulation to insurance coverage and in not joining Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) as a party defendant. Applicant filed an answer contending that Hartford's petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which she recommended that reconsideration be denied. Subsequently, at our request applicant and Hartford participated in a commissioners' settlement conference. Zurich also participated in the commissioners' settlement conference but has never been joined as a party defendant in these cases. Applicant, Hartford and Zurich agreed

  The WCJ's Findings and Awards were rescinded and Zurich American Insurance Company was joined as a party defendant, with the Compromise and Release approved, resolving the reconsideration petition issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11599995 · 2021-02-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2obligation to give a worker a DWC-1 claim form apprising the worker of his or her potential eligibility for workers' compensation benefits within one day of obtaining knowledge of an injury or claim of injury. However, the Labor Code section 5402(b) presumption of compensability arises only if "liability is not rejected within 90 days after the date the claim form is filed under Section 5401...." (Emphasis added.) In Honeywell v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wagner) (2005) 35 Cal.4th 24 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 97], the California Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that the 90-day period to accept or deny liability runs from the employer's breach of its duty to provide a claim form. Rather, the Supreme Court held that the 90-day period runs from the date that an injured worker files his or her claim form, regardless of whether the employer complied with its statutory duty, unless the applicant can show the following elements of estoppel:

  The WCJ misapplied the section 5402(b) presumption by starting the 90-day period from the employer's breach of duty to provide a claim form rather than from the date the claim form was filed by the applicant, without analyzing estoppel elements as required by Honeywell (Wagner). The WCJ's decision was rescinded and the case remanded for proper analysis.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• MAVREDAKIS PHILLIPS CRANERT
• MAVREDAKIS PHILLIPS
• Mavredakis Phillips
• MAVREDAKIS, PHILLIPS CRANERT

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.