California WCABLaw firm

Robinson Di Lando, APLC

Robinson Di Lando, APLC is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Apportionment (1), C&R / stipulations approval (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Pomona.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 4

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Los Angeles 2
Pomona 2
Van Nuys 2
Anaheim 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 applicant
2 for the defense

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.

ADJ10470278 · 2025-03-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5There is no dispute regarding the end date of the temporary disability period. In the agreed medical examiner Jon Greenfield, M.D.'s report dated August 15, 2022, in the discussion section it states "Dr. Chon, in his note of 7/21/2016, indicated that the applicant was totally temporarily disabled." The undersigned WCJ incorrectly believed that was the first time Dr. Chon placed Applicant on temporary disability. However, in the record review section of the report it states "on 2/18/2016, the applicant was placed on temporary disability as of 2/18/2016." Applicant's petition for reconsideration it is correct and should be granted. The undersigned WCJ's award should be modified by the recon unit or returned to the trial court, to correct: the period of temporary disability; period where Labor Code § 4850 benefits should be paid; and the period and rate at which temporary disability should be paid. (Report, p. 2.)
The WCJ admitted error in the temporary disability period and recommended correction, which the Appeals Board granted.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ13069105 · 2024-06-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeC&R / stipulations approvalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Based upon the WCJ's discussion in the Report, good cause existed to rescind the awards and OACRs in these cases. We further agree with the WCJ that the issue of credit is more appropriately deferred at this time, and we will amend the F&O accordingly
Good cause existed to rescind the awards and OACRs in these cases, as discussed in the WCJ's report and adopted by the Appeals Board.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ9296801 · 2024-12-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, and to allow all parties due process and to further our obligation to achieve a substantial understanding of the record when deciding reconsideration, we will grant reconsideration to study the issues presented.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to the voluminous record and lack of sufficient time to review the merits within the current time constraints, despite deficiencies in the defendant's petition.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ13069105 · 2024-04-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In my 11/1/22 Findings and Order, as noted above, I found good cause to set aside settlements in all four of the cases that had been presented to me as a unified "package" on 5/23/19. Accordingly, I ordered that the two stipulated awards in ADJ7597612 and ADJ10240855 each be rescinded, as well as the joint OACR in ADJ9551033 and ADJ6995603.
The WCJ found good cause to set aside the settlements based on procedural irregularities and undue influence, which the defendant did not substantially challenge on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ10102998 · 2022-09-28 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification 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 and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition for Disqualification.
The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish grounds for disqualification under the cited statutes and rules.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11166250 · 2022-01-21 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant in pro per seeks reconsideration of the Order Dismissing Attorney of Record for the Applicant (Order) issued on November 1, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that the Law Office of Solimon Rodgers be dismissed as applicant's attorney of record.
The Board found the WCJ's order dismissing the attorney of record was a non-final order issued without due process, lacking notice and opportunity to be heard, and thus rescinded the order and returned the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11166250 · 2021-10-25 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant in pro per seeks reconsideration of the Order Taking Off Calendar (OTOC) issued on July 28, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that the matter be taken off calendar.
The OTOC was a non-final order that did not adjudicate substantive rights, so the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed and treated as a Petition for Removal, which was granted because the WCJ failed to establish a record or grounds for the OTOC and should have issued a Notice of Intention to the attorney Solimon Rodgers.
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.

ROBINSON DI LANDO, APLC
ROBINSON DI LANDO

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 →

Robinson Di Lando, APLC

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

2 for the defense

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.

ADJ10470278 · 2025-03-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5There is no dispute regarding the end date of the temporary disability period. In the agreed medical examiner Jon Greenfield, M.D.'s report dated August 15, 2022, in the discussion section it states "Dr. Chon, in his note of 7/21/2016, indicated that the applicant was totally temporarily disabled." The undersigned WCJ incorrectly believed that was the first time Dr. Chon placed Applicant on temporary disability. However, in the record review section of the report it states "on 2/18/2016, the applicant was placed on temporary disability as of 2/18/2016." Applicant's petition for reconsideration it is correct and should be granted. The undersigned WCJ's award should be modified by the recon unit or returned to the trial court, to correct: the period of temporary disability; period where Labor Code § 4850 benefits should be paid; and the period and rate at which temporary disability should be paid. (Report, p. 2.)

The WCJ admitted error in the temporary disability period and recommended correction, which the Appeals Board granted.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ13069105 · 2024-06-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeC&R / stipulations approvalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Based upon the WCJ's discussion in the Report, good cause existed to rescind the awards and OACRs in these cases. We further agree with the WCJ that the issue of credit is more appropriately deferred at this time, and we will amend the F&O accordingly

Good cause existed to rescind the awards and OACRs in these cases, as discussed in the WCJ's report and adopted by the Appeals Board.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ9296801 · 2024-12-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, and to allow all parties due process and to further our obligation to achieve a substantial understanding of the record when deciding reconsideration, we will grant reconsideration to study the issues presented.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to the voluminous record and lack of sufficient time to review the merits within the current time constraints, despite deficiencies in the defendant's petition.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ13069105 · 2024-04-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6In my 11/1/22 Findings and Order, as noted above, I found good cause to set aside settlements in all four of the cases that had been presented to me as a unified "package" on 5/23/19. Accordingly, I ordered that the two stipulated awards in ADJ7597612 and ADJ10240855 each be rescinded, as well as the joint OACR in ADJ9551033 and ADJ6995603.

The WCJ found good cause to set aside the settlements based on procedural irregularities and undue influence, which the defendant did not substantially challenge on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ10102998 · 2022-09-28 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification 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 and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition for Disqualification.

The petition did not set forth sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish grounds for disqualification under the cited statutes and rules.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11166250 · 2022-01-21 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant in pro per seeks reconsideration of the Order Dismissing Attorney of Record for the Applicant (Order) issued on November 1, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that the Law Office of Solimon Rodgers be dismissed as applicant's attorney of record.

The Board found the WCJ's order dismissing the attorney of record was a non-final order issued without due process, lacking notice and opportunity to be heard, and thus rescinded the order and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11166250 · 2021-10-25 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant in pro per seeks reconsideration of the Order Taking Off Calendar (OTOC) issued on July 28, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that the matter be taken off calendar.

The OTOC was a non-final order that did not adjudicate substantive rights, so the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed and treated as a Petition for Removal, which was granted because the WCJ failed to establish a record or grounds for the OTOC and should have issued a Notice of Intention to the attorney Solimon Rodgers.

Official decision · page 1 →