California WCABLaw firm
Me Law
Me Law is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to Psyche AOE/COE (1), Liens (1) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Oxnard, then Riverside.
- Decisions
- 7
- Years
- 2023–2026
- Issues disputed
- 3
- District offices
- 5
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 7 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.
- ADJ1208836 · 2026-07-17 · Oxnard District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10The result for all lien claimants is the same, therefore, pursuant to Labor Code §4903.05(c)(3), as the “failure to file a signed declaration under this subdivision shall result in dismissal of the lien with prejudice by operation of law.” Lien claimant had until 7/3/2017, by 5:00 p.m. within which to file a declaration in compliance with Labor Code §4903.05(c). Lien claimant failed to do so. The lien claim was dismissed by operation of law. Pursuant to the above, it is Found that lien claimant, Dr. David Silver, failed to file a declaration pursuant to Labor Code §4903.05(c)(2) on or before 7/3/2017, resulting in dismissal of their lien filed on 3/28/2005 with prejudice by operation of law pursuant to Labor Code §4903.05(c)(3), rendering this court lacking jurisdiction to address their lien.
Lien claimant failed to file the required declaration by the July 3, 2017 deadline, resulting in dismissal of the lien by operation of law.
Official decision · page 10 → - ADJ20695668 · 2026-06-12 · Redding District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.8The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].)
The WCAB found the record insufficient to fairly determine the applicant's average weekly wage or earning capacity, deferring the issue for further evidentiary development.
Official decision · page 8 → - 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 → - ADJ1208836 · 2026-08-19 · Oxnard District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the Appeals Board’s attention that the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration served on July 17, 2026 contains a clerical error consisting of the omission of an Order rescinding the Order taking Cases Nos. ADJ3704380 and ADJ4088542 off calendar issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 4, 2026. We correct this clerical error by virtue of this decision without granting reconsideration, as such errors may be corrected without further proceedings at any time. (Lab. Code, § 5803; 8 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10986; see also 2 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, March 2019 Update) Supplemental Proceedings, § 23.74, p. 23-76.) We add the following Order to those issued in our July 17, 2026 decision.
The Appeals Board corrected a clerical error in the prior decision without granting reconsideration, as allowed by law.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ20725506 · 2026-06-26 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order denying petition for automatic reassignment issued on March 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ denied applicant's request for automatic reassignment because it was not timely.
The WCJ and WCAB panel found the petition for removal was not timely filed under WCAB Rule 10788 and that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10954617 · 2026-03-23 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ issued an NIT, which is not a final order or decision, thus a Petition for
The Notice of Intention to Compel is not a final order or decision, so the Petitions for Reconsideration are not appropriate and the applicant is not aggrieved. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petitions accordingly.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ12232315 · 2026-03-16 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on December 23, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The petition for removal was dismissed because the issue became moot after the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar for possible settlement.
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.
- ME LAW
- ME Law
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.