California WCABLaw firm

Peatman Law Group

Peatman Law Group is named in 15 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2025. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (3), AOE/COE (2) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Los Angeles. The firm it meets most often is Law Offices of Ramin Younessi (1).

Decisions: 15
Years: 2023–2025
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 9

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 of 5 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.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

8 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

Law Offices of Ramin Younessi1

16 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

Van Nuys 5
Los Angeles 2
Santa Ana 2
Anaheim 1
Marina del Rey 1
Oxnard 1
Pomona 1
Riverside 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.

8 for the applicant
5 for the defense

Counted over 13 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.

ADJ16728100 · 2025-10-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Cost petitioner contends, in pertinent part, that the discovery issues remain relevant and that defendant engaged in bad faith actions by unreasonably delaying payment.
The Cost Petitioner failed to prove bad faith by the defendants, which is required to impose sanctions and attorney fees under Labor Code section 5813 and CCR section 10545(h). The defendants paid the requested amount and a self-imposed penalty, and no evidence of unreasonable delay or bad faith was presented.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16007451 · 2025-08-25 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8MEDICAL-LEGAL CHARGES Petitioner has argued that the reporting of the lien claimant is capable of proving an industrial injury and is a medical-legal report, and referred to CCR 9397(H). It appears that lien claimant is referring to 9793(h). It does not comply with this section as it was not obtained and requested by a party for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim. The request by applicant attorney was for treatment. There was no contested claim until after denial on June 13, 2022, and after that date none of the reports from petitioner (5 & 6) are capable of proving or disproving a disputed fact or proving injury. The reporting by the lien claimant does not comply with California Code of Regulations 9793(h). The exhibits from petitioner did not comply with Labor Code 4628 in that there was not a complete history, prior medical records were not summarized, and according to Labor Code 4628(e), failure to comply with requirements of this section make the report inadmissible.
The medical-legal reports were not obtained or requested for proving a contested claim and did not comply with regulatory requirements, thus not admissible for medical-legal charges.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ11900759 · 2025-03-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Here, the WCJ found that cost petitioner, DocCentral failed to sustain its burden of proving that a contested claim existed at the time the expenses were incurred. We disagree and find that a contested claim existed when the Application For Adjudication of Claim was filed by applicant's attorney on February 1, 2019. Paragraph 9 states, "This application is filed because of a disagreement regarding liability for: Temporary disability, Permanent disability indemnity, Reimbursement for medical expense, Rehabilitation, Medical treatment, Supplemental Job Displacement/ Return to Work, Compensation at proper rate, and Other (Specify)." Thus, we find that lien claimant met its burden that a contested claim existed pursuant to section 4620 when cost petitioner issued the first subpoena duces tecum on March 13, 2019. (Exhibit 7, 3/13/2019.)
The WCAB found that a contested claim existed when the Application for Adjudication of Claim was filed on February 1, 2019, and that the cost petitioner met its burden that a contested claim existed when it issued the first subpoena duces tecum on March 13, 2019.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ12055950 · 2025-01-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEmixed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant Dental Trauma Center (DTC) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on October 10, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that DTC did not prove that an industrial injury occurred in this case, and that they did not establish that they provided valid medical-legal services.
The WCJ found no industrial injury based on the medical evidence, but the Appeals Board found the record incomplete and granted reconsideration to allow further review of the injury AOE/COE issue.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8750673 · 2024-11-19 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, though his attorneys Shehzad Ahmad and California Law Associates, seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order issued on August 19, 2024, wherein it was found in pertinent part that applicant's attorney is not entitled to reimbursement for costs incurred for the services of an expert opinion regarding circuit board manufacturing and chemicals used in the construction of multilayer printed circuit boards because at the time it was incurred it was not reasonable and/or necessary.
The Appeals Board found that the expert was qualified and the costs were reasonable and necessary due to the lack of sufficient MSDS from Polyclad Laminates, making the expert's report essential for the medical record development.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11436476 · 2024-08-29 · Santa Barbara District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred
Determinative passage · p.22. The issue of whether the County of Santa Barbara is applicant's employer is deferred.
The Appeals Board deferred the issue of whether the County of Santa Barbara is applicant's employer and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion after remand.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11900759 · 2025-10-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Section 4620(b)(2) states that: "A contested claim exists when the employer knows or reasonably should know that the employee is claiming entitlement to any benefit arising out of a claimed industrial injury and one of the following conditions exists:... (2) The employer fails to accept liability for benefits after the expiration of a reasonable period of time within which to decide if it will contest the claim." (Emphasis added.)
The Appeals Board found that a contested claim existed when subpoenas were issued in March 2019 because the employer had issued a delay notice and the claim was on delay status, which constitutes a contested claim under the law and relevant en banc precedent.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ14635315 · 2025-08-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION 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); 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).) All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A
Due process requires a record of the parties' arguments to review the order; absence of such record prejudices lien claimant and justifies removal and rescission of the order.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ2545427 · 2025-08-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) seeks reconsideration of the Order Appointing New Joint Liaison Counsel (Order) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 3, 2025.1 The WCJ ordered that SCIF and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) be appointed the new "Joint Liaison Counsel" in this consolidated proceeding and that together, counsel for SCIF and Travelers are to coordinate and conduct all discovery, serve all minutes of hearing, communicate with all other defendants regarding discovery plans as set forth in detail in California Rule of Court section 3.506 (Cal. Rule of Court, § 3.506) and in the Order.
The petition was denied because SCIF failed to provide specific evidence supporting its claims and the legal arguments against its appointment as liaison counsel were previously rejected by the Appeals Board.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13656596 · 2025-03-04 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board, and the merits of the dental treatment claim were supported by credible, unrebutted medical opinions from Dr. Abdo and Dr. Schames. The defendant's denial based on parts of body defense without medical investigation was rejected.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8750673 · 2025-02-11 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Following their participation in a commissioners' settlement conference set at our request, the parties resolved applicant's attorney's claim for medical-legal costs against defendants, the sole issue raised in this reconsideration, by stipulation. The stipulation was filed on January 24, 2025.
The parties resolved the sole issue of attorney's medical-legal costs by stipulation, which the Board approved, leading to rescission of the prior WCJ order.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13363747 · 2024-12-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant reconsideration, amend the first paragraph of the Amended Joint Order to remove lien claimants Dental Trauma Center from the provisions ordering a retrospective utilization review, and otherwise affirm the findings and order.
The petition for reconsideration was granted to amend the lien claims order by removing the Dental Trauma Center from retrospective utilization review due to lack of proper service of the UR deferral letter, while affirming other findings and orders.
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.

PEATMAN LAW GROUP
Peatman Law Group

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 →

Peatman Law Group

Decisions

Years

2023–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

What they litigate

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

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

8 decisions across the groups shown

How the appealed decisions came out

8 for the applicant

5 for the defense

Counted over 13 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.

ADJ16728100 · 2025-10-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Cost petitioner contends, in pertinent part, that the discovery issues remain relevant and that defendant engaged in bad faith actions by unreasonably delaying payment.

The Cost Petitioner failed to prove bad faith by the defendants, which is required to impose sanctions and attorney fees under Labor Code section 5813 and CCR section 10545(h). The defendants paid the requested amount and a self-imposed penalty, and no evidence of unreasonable delay or bad faith was presented.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16007451 · 2025-08-25 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8MEDICAL-LEGAL CHARGES Petitioner has argued that the reporting of the lien claimant is capable of proving an industrial injury and is a medical-legal report, and referred to CCR 9397(H). It appears that lien claimant is referring to 9793(h). It does not comply with this section as it was not obtained and requested by a party for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim. The request by applicant attorney was for treatment. There was no contested claim until after denial on June 13, 2022, and after that date none of the reports from petitioner (5 & 6) are capable of proving or disproving a disputed fact or proving injury. The reporting by the lien claimant does not comply with California Code of Regulations 9793(h). The exhibits from petitioner did not comply with Labor Code 4628 in that there was not a complete history, prior medical records were not summarized, and according to Labor Code 4628(e), failure to comply with requirements of this section make the report inadmissible.

The medical-legal reports were not obtained or requested for proving a contested claim and did not comply with regulatory requirements, thus not admissible for medical-legal charges.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ11900759 · 2025-03-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Here, the WCJ found that cost petitioner, DocCentral failed to sustain its burden of proving that a contested claim existed at the time the expenses were incurred. We disagree and find that a contested claim existed when the Application For Adjudication of Claim was filed by applicant's attorney on February 1, 2019. Paragraph 9 states, "This application is filed because of a disagreement regarding liability for: Temporary disability, Permanent disability indemnity, Reimbursement for medical expense, Rehabilitation, Medical treatment, Supplemental Job Displacement/ Return to Work, Compensation at proper rate, and Other (Specify)." Thus, we find that lien claimant met its burden that a contested claim existed pursuant to section 4620 when cost petitioner issued the first subpoena duces tecum on March 13, 2019. (Exhibit 7, 3/13/2019.)

The WCAB found that a contested claim existed when the Application for Adjudication of Claim was filed on February 1, 2019, and that the cost petitioner met its burden that a contested claim existed when it issued the first subpoena duces tecum on March 13, 2019.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ12055950 · 2025-01-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant Dental Trauma Center (DTC) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on October 10, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that DTC did not prove that an industrial injury occurred in this case, and that they did not establish that they provided valid medical-legal services.

The WCJ found no industrial injury based on the medical evidence, but the Appeals Board found the record incomplete and granted reconsideration to allow further review of the injury AOE/COE issue.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8750673 · 2024-11-19 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, though his attorneys Shehzad Ahmad and California Law Associates, seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order issued on August 19, 2024, wherein it was found in pertinent part that applicant's attorney is not entitled to reimbursement for costs incurred for the services of an expert opinion regarding circuit board manufacturing and chemicals used in the construction of multilayer printed circuit boards because at the time it was incurred it was not reasonable and/or necessary.

The Appeals Board found that the expert was qualified and the costs were reasonable and necessary due to the lack of sufficient MSDS from Polyclad Laminates, making the expert's report essential for the medical record development.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11436476 · 2024-08-29 · Santa Barbara District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred

Determinative passage · p.22. The issue of whether the County of Santa Barbara is applicant's employer is deferred.

The Appeals Board deferred the issue of whether the County of Santa Barbara is applicant's employer and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion after remand.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11900759 · 2025-10-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Section 4620(b)(2) states that: "A contested claim exists when the employer knows or reasonably should know that the employee is claiming entitlement to any benefit arising out of a claimed industrial injury and one of the following conditions exists:... (2) The employer fails to accept liability for benefits after the expiration of a reasonable period of time within which to decide if it will contest the claim." (Emphasis added.)

The Appeals Board found that a contested claim existed when subpoenas were issued in March 2019 because the employer had issued a delay notice and the claim was on delay status, which constitutes a contested claim under the law and relevant en banc precedent.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ14635315 · 2025-08-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION 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); 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).) All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A

Due process requires a record of the parties' arguments to review the order; absence of such record prejudices lien claimant and justifies removal and rescission of the order.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ2545427 · 2025-08-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) seeks reconsideration of the Order Appointing New Joint Liaison Counsel (Order) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 3, 2025.1 The WCJ ordered that SCIF and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) be appointed the new "Joint Liaison Counsel" in this consolidated proceeding and that together, counsel for SCIF and Travelers are to coordinate and conduct all discovery, serve all minutes of hearing, communicate with all other defendants regarding discovery plans as set forth in detail in California Rule of Court section 3.506 (Cal. Rule of Court, § 3.506) and in the Order.

The petition was denied because SCIF failed to provide specific evidence supporting its claims and the legal arguments against its appointment as liaison counsel were previously rejected by the Appeals Board.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13656596 · 2025-03-04 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

The petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board, and the merits of the dental treatment claim were supported by credible, unrebutted medical opinions from Dr. Abdo and Dr. Schames. The defendant's denial based on parts of body defense without medical investigation was rejected.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8750673 · 2025-02-11 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Following their participation in a commissioners' settlement conference set at our request, the parties resolved applicant's attorney's claim for medical-legal costs against defendants, the sole issue raised in this reconsideration, by stipulation. The stipulation was filed on January 24, 2025.

The parties resolved the sole issue of attorney's medical-legal costs by stipulation, which the Board approved, leading to rescission of the prior WCJ order.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13363747 · 2024-12-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant reconsideration, amend the first paragraph of the Amended Joint Order to remove lien claimants Dental Trauma Center from the provisions ordering a retrospective utilization review, and otherwise affirm the findings and order.

The petition for reconsideration was granted to amend the lien claims order by removing the Dental Trauma Center from retrospective utilization review due to lack of proper service of the UR deferral letter, while affirming other findings and orders.

Official decision · page 1 →