California WCABLaw firm

Sapra & Navarra, LLP

Sapra & Navarra, LLP is named in 16 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (4), AOE/COE (3) and Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Garrett Law Group (5).

Decisions: 16
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 6

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 10 of 10 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.

11 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

11 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

Los Angeles 3
Van Nuys 3
Anaheim 2
Fresno 2
Marina del Rey 2
Pomona 2

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.

9 for the defense
3 returned for more record
2 for the applicant

Counted over 13 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 →
ADJ15175189 · 2025-06-19 · Pomona District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.5Confronted with medical and testimonial evidence appearing to indicate that neither applicant nor the QME seems to have believed that applicant's psyche injury had any significant relationship to her employment for TBS, we therefore believe it was incumbent on the WCJ to defer the determination of whether applicant sustained any psyche injury AOE/COE, pending resolution of the issue raised by that testimony.
The Board found insufficient evidence to determine whether the psyche injury arose out of and in the course of employment with both JITB and TBS, noting the need for further development of the record to clarify employment periods and injury causation.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10404221 · 2024-12-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11period June 30, 1994 to October 9, 2019, as a general manager, occupational group number: 212, at Burbank, California, by Camile's, Inc., claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, cardiovascular system (in the form of hypertension) and psychiatric system. 2. The issue of what period(s) applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury is deferred. 3. The issue of the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is deferred. 4. The issue of the period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5 is deferred. 5. All other issues are deferred.
The WCJ failed to make findings on the period(s) of cumulative trauma injury, date of injury under Labor Code section 5412, and period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5, requiring further development and deferral of these issues.
Official decision · page 11 →
ADJ16231186 · 2024-09-27 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7II. Applicant contends that the WCJ erroneously failed to find that the microdiscectomy surgical procedure in the May 10, 2023 RFA is reasonable and necessary. Specifically, applicant contends that Dr. Nussbaum's reporting of applicant's symptomatology against the applicable criteria demonstrates that microdiscectomy surgery is reasonably required to cure or relieve her from the effects of injury. We observe that Labor Code section 46001 provides that an employer must provide "[m]edical, surgical, chiropractic, acupuncture, and hospital treatment, including nursing, medicines, medical and surgical supplies, crutches, and apparatuses, including orthotic and prosthetic devices and services, that is reasonably required to cure or relieve the injured worker from the effects of his or her injury." (§ 4600 (a).)
The Appeals Board found that the applicant met the MTUS criteria for the microdiscectomy surgery based on substantial medical evidence from Dr. Nussbaum, despite initial denials and contrary opinions from other physicians, and ordered the surgery to be granted.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ6609179 · 2024-05-16 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 2, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant failed in his "affirmative duty to produce detailed records showing services and dates rendered for the home health care services provided", and thus ordered that applicant take nothing further as reimbursement for such services.
Applicant failed to produce detailed records for home health care services, leading to denial of reimbursement; however, the matter was returned to WCJ for further proceedings to create a complete record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12260142 · 2021-09-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10It was found that Applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury to his right shoulder, right arm, right elbow, right wrist, right hand, neck, lower back, waist and abdominal pain (possible hernia) based upon Applicant's failure to meet his burden of proof. It was specifically noted that his testimony was self-serving and lack credibility.
Applicant failed to meet burden of proof for cumulative trauma injury; WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and supported by substantial evidence; defense witnesses' testimony found credible and more persuasive.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ19889304 · 2025-12-31 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and held reconsideration would be an adequate remedy; the WCJ had discretion to continue the trial due to lack of exhibits and no abuse of discretion was shown.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14604728 · 2025-12-22 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss disqualification as the petition was not timely filed and is not supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.) If we were not dismissing, we would otherwise have denied the petition based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ's Report.
The petition was dismissed because it was not timely filed and lacked the required affidavit under penalty of perjury; alternatively, the WCJ's report showed no bias or grounds for disqualification.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6609179 · 2023-10-23 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 2, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant, failed in his "affirmative duty to produce detailed records per Labor Code section "4307.8"1 and the case of Neri Hernandez v. Geneva Staffing, Inc. dba Workforce Outsourcing, Inc. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 682 (Appeals Board en banc) (Neri Hernandez), to produce detailed records showing services and dates rendered for the home health care services provided, and thus ordered that applicant take nothing further as reimbursement for such services.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's decision lacked sufficient record development and legal clarity, warranting reconsideration and further proceedings.
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.

SAPRA & NAVARRA
Sapra & Navarra, LLP
SAPRA & NAVARRA, LLP
Sapra & Navarra
SAPRA & NAVARRA LLP
Sapra & Navarra 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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Sapra & Navarra, LLP

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

What they litigate

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

How the appealed decisions came out

9 for the defense

3 returned for more record

2 for the applicant

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 →

ADJ15175189 · 2025-06-19 · Pomona District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.5Confronted with medical and testimonial evidence appearing to indicate that neither applicant nor the QME seems to have believed that applicant's psyche injury had any significant relationship to her employment for TBS, we therefore believe it was incumbent on the WCJ to defer the determination of whether applicant sustained any psyche injury AOE/COE, pending resolution of the issue raised by that testimony.

The Board found insufficient evidence to determine whether the psyche injury arose out of and in the course of employment with both JITB and TBS, noting the need for further development of the record to clarify employment periods and injury causation.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10404221 · 2024-12-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.11period June 30, 1994 to October 9, 2019, as a general manager, occupational group number: 212, at Burbank, California, by Camile's, Inc., claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, cardiovascular system (in the form of hypertension) and psychiatric system. 2. The issue of what period(s) applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury is deferred. 3. The issue of the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is deferred. 4. The issue of the period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5 is deferred. 5. All other issues are deferred.

The WCJ failed to make findings on the period(s) of cumulative trauma injury, date of injury under Labor Code section 5412, and period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5, requiring further development and deferral of these issues.

Official decision · page 11 →

ADJ16231186 · 2024-09-27 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7II. Applicant contends that the WCJ erroneously failed to find that the microdiscectomy surgical procedure in the May 10, 2023 RFA is reasonable and necessary. Specifically, applicant contends that Dr. Nussbaum's reporting of applicant's symptomatology against the applicable criteria demonstrates that microdiscectomy surgery is reasonably required to cure or relieve her from the effects of injury. We observe that Labor Code section 46001 provides that an employer must provide "[m]edical, surgical, chiropractic, acupuncture, and hospital treatment, including nursing, medicines, medical and surgical supplies, crutches, and apparatuses, including orthotic and prosthetic devices and services, that is reasonably required to cure or relieve the injured worker from the effects of his or her injury." (§ 4600 (a).)

The Appeals Board found that the applicant met the MTUS criteria for the microdiscectomy surgery based on substantial medical evidence from Dr. Nussbaum, despite initial denials and contrary opinions from other physicians, and ordered the surgery to be granted.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ6609179 · 2024-05-16 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 2, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant failed in his "affirmative duty to produce detailed records showing services and dates rendered for the home health care services provided", and thus ordered that applicant take nothing further as reimbursement for such services.

Applicant failed to produce detailed records for home health care services, leading to denial of reimbursement; however, the matter was returned to WCJ for further proceedings to create a complete record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12260142 · 2021-09-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10It was found that Applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury to his right shoulder, right arm, right elbow, right wrist, right hand, neck, lower back, waist and abdominal pain (possible hernia) based upon Applicant's failure to meet his burden of proof. It was specifically noted that his testimony was self-serving and lack credibility.

Applicant failed to meet burden of proof for cumulative trauma injury; WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and supported by substantial evidence; defense witnesses' testimony found credible and more persuasive.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ19889304 · 2025-12-31 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and held reconsideration would be an adequate remedy; the WCJ had discretion to continue the trial due to lack of exhibits and no abuse of discretion was shown.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14604728 · 2025-12-22 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss disqualification as the petition was not timely filed and is not supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.) If we were not dismissing, we would otherwise have denied the petition based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ's Report.

The petition was dismissed because it was not timely filed and lacked the required affidavit under penalty of perjury; alternatively, the WCJ's report showed no bias or grounds for disqualification.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6609179 · 2023-10-23 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 2, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant, failed in his "affirmative duty to produce detailed records per Labor Code section "4307.8"1 and the case of Neri Hernandez v. Geneva Staffing, Inc. dba Workforce Outsourcing, Inc. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 682 (Appeals Board en banc) (Neri Hernandez), to produce detailed records showing services and dates rendered for the home health care services provided, and thus ordered that applicant take nothing further as reimbursement for such services.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's decision lacked sufficient record development and legal clarity, warranting reconsideration and further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →