Rosenberg, Yudin & Peatman

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 9
• Los Angeles 6
• Santa Ana 2
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Francisco 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.

• 11 for the applicant
• 8 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 20 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.

• ADJ13261327 · 2025-09-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment (AOE/COE).

  The applicant was found to be providing a benefit to the employer at the time of injury, meeting the condition under Labor Code section 3600(a)(2). The injury occurred during a lunch meeting to discuss personnel issues, which was reasonably expected and beneficial to the employer.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1058134 · 2025-09-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the June 10, 2025 F&O and substitute a new Finding of Fact that defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the statute of limitations and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  Defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the statute of limitations because there was no evidence of notice of benefits to applicant, and the employer did not provide statutory notice, triggering the claims administrator's duty to notify.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10531138 · 2025-03-10 · Los Angeles District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Bearing the above in mind, we observe that the only record of the allegedly sanctionable conduct by lien claimant's representative is contained in the minute reflection of the WCJ. Because the record sets forth no other evidentiary basis for sanctions and because the WCJ is now a potential witness to the events of the June 24, 2024 hearing, we are concerned that based on the existing record a reasonable person may entertain doubts regarding the impartiality of the trier of fact. With due consideration of the facts and circumstances presented in this case, and to the extent

  The Appeals Board found that the record lacked sufficient evidentiary basis for sanctions and that the WCJ's impartiality could reasonably be questioned, warranting rescission of the sanctions and return for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9017829 · 2025-01-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of September 30, 2024, wherein it was found that "the applicant... while employed on June 16, 2013 as a fo[r]k lift operator... by DIAMOND STAFFING SERVICES, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE IN LIQUIDATION, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to the lumbar spine, cervical spine, and bilateral knees." (Finding of Fact No. 1.) Finding of Fact Number 2 then contradicts the first finding, (incorrectly) stating, "Pursuant to the Directive of the Workers['] Compensation Appeals Board, the Applicant was an employee of National Retail Transportation, and not an employee of Diamond Staffing Services." Finding of Fact Number 3 cryptically states, "No further issues will be addressed by the Court per Hartford's request." In this matter, Hartford is the carrier for National Retail Transportation (NRT).

  The WCJ failed to rule on CIGA's Petition for change of administration and instead re-litigated a previously settled issue; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for proper ruling on the outstanding issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ4417519 · 2024-12-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5injury, while employed on June 18, 2002 as a painter and construction laborer, at Newbury Park, by David Culbertson, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his neck, left shoulder, left elbow, left wrist, and low back. 2. Pursuant to Labor Code section 3352, applicant was not an employee of Gabriela Vickrey and Randy Vickrey as they owned or occupied the residential dwelling and applicant worked at the residential dwelling for less than 52 hours. 3. David Culbertson did not own or occupy the dwelling where applicant's injury occurred so that Labor Code section 3352 and 3715 do not apply to his employment of applicant. 4. Applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations as the employer failed to provide applicant with a claim form or other statutory notices of his right to seek workers' compensation and thus, the statute of limitations was equitably tolled. 5. Defendant did not meet his burden of proof to show prejudice under the doctrine of laches. Furthermore, defendant, an uninsured employer, has unclean hands.

  The statute of limitations was equitably tolled because the employer failed to provide a claim form or statutory notices; defendant did not prove prejudice under laches and had unclean hands as an uninsured employer.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2024-08-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence in the existing record to find that lien claimant did rebut the presumption "affecting the burden of proof" in section 139.21(g) that her lien claims "and all underlying bills for service and claims for compensation asserted therein, [arose] from the conduct subjecting the physician, practitioner, or provider to suspension..." (Lab. Code, § 139.21(g).)

  The Appeals Board found that lien claimant rebutted the presumption under Labor Code section 139.21(g) because the fraudulent conduct for which she was convicted occurred in 2006, before she began treating workers' compensation patients in 2009, so the liens did not arise from the conduct subjecting her to suspension.

• ADJ11097620 · 2024-08-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5This matter proceeded to Trial on February 6, 2024, on the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant has reached maximum medical improvement status on a psychiatric basis. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to retroactive temporary disability benefits and the amount thereof. 3. Whether defendants have complied with the IMR determination, dated September 29, 2021. All other issues were deferred and bifurcated. (MOH, 2:17-24).

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant has not reached psychiatric MMI due to lack of treatment and is entitled to retroactive and ongoing temporary total disability benefits based on the opinions of the treating psychiatrist and QME.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12812938 · 2024-05-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7As demonstrated above, the medical treatment by Mayer Schames, D.D.S., a California stock corporation doing business as The Dental Trauma Center, was reasonable and consistent with Labor Code § 4604.5. In addition, its medical reporting was reasonable in accordance with Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785. RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned WCJ respectfully recommends denial of the Defendant's petition for reconsideration dated April 5, 2024. Date: April 8, 2024

  The WCJ found the medical treatment reasonable and consistent with Labor Code 4604.5 based on Dr. Schames's detailed medical necessity opinion; the WCAB adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and denied reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16925192 · 2024-05-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeDeath benefitsdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.7In this regard, the record shows that the WCJ determined that Melanie the applicant is not entitled to Labor Code section 4703.5(a) death benefits based solely upon the finding that she was not a total dependent of the applicant and is otherwise undeveloped as to that issue. (Report, p. 7.) But since we have determined that Melanie the applicant was a total dependent, the record is without grounds to support the finding that she is not entitled to Labor Code section 4703.5(a) death benefits. Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that defers the issue of whether Melanie the applicant is entitled to Labor Code 4703.5(a) death benefits.

  Since Melanie the applicant was found to be a total dependent, the issue of her entitlement to death benefits under Labor Code section 4703.5(a) was deferred for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10620763 · 2024-04-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In summary, we are persuaded that a complete evidentiary record is necessary to the proper determination of the issue of applicant's election pursuant to section 5500.5. The WCJ's Order presently defers the issue of the election pending a determination of injury AOE/COE. However, because we believe a record must be created to address the issue of the election in the first instance, we will grant removal and affirm the Order, but amend it to reflect that the issue of applicant's election is deferred pending the creation of a full evidentiary record pursuant to Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473.

  The WCJ's order deferring the election issue was affirmed but amended to require creation of a full evidentiary record before adjudication, ensuring proper evaluation of applicant's election rights under Labor Code section 5500.5.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12399048 · 2022-10-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Medvantage Orthocare LLC, through its representative Liening Edge, seeks reconsideration of the WCJ's July 18, 2022 Findings and Order, which determined in relevant part that lien claimant failed to establish applicant's right to self-procure treatment outside of defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) due to a neglect or refusal of medical treatment. (Findings of Fact No. 4; Opinion on Decision, dated July 18, 2022, at p. 3.)

  Lien claimant failed to provide evidence that defendant neglected or refused medical treatment by failing to provide timely notice under the MPN, and defendant provided appropriate notice and scheduled medical appointments.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ212251 · 2022-03-14 · Anaheim District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3The statutory and regulatory duties of a WCJ include the issuance of a decision that complies with Labor Code section 5313.3 A WCJ is required to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5502, 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (Blackledge) (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-622 (Appeals Bd. en banc).)

  The WCJ's dismissal of the lien without a hearing or evidentiary record violated due process and statutory requirements, necessitating rescission and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• ROSENBERG YUDIN LLP
• ROSENBERG YUDIN
• ROSENBERG YUDIN & PEATMAN
• ROSENBERG YUDIN & PEATMAN, LLP
• ROSENBERG, YUDIN & PEATMAN
• ROSENBERG YUDIN & PEATMAN LLP
• Rosenberg, Yudin & Peatman
• ROSENBERG YUDIN LAW FIRM

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.