Testan Law

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 16
• Van Nuys 14
• Long Beach 6
• Anaheim 4
• Oakland 4
• Oxnard 4
• Pomona 4
• Sacramento 3
• Bakersfield 2
• Riverside 2
• Eureka 1
• Redding 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.

• 32 for the defense
• 26 for the applicant
• 9 returned for more record

Counted over 63 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.

• ADJ20938147 · 2026-04-30 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, defendant's notice of delay was served on May 23, 2025 within California on applicant by regular mail. (Exhibit A.) The parties were therefore required to wait until fifteen (15) days after May 23, 2025, or until the after 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2025 before requesting a panel. In their panel request, however, defendant indicated that the "date of request for comprehensive exam" was May 22, 2025. (Exhibit B, p. 3.) This is contrary to the facts of the case and contrary to the parties' stipulation to a May 23, 2025 "start date per Labor Code 4062.2." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE), February 2, 2026, p. 2.) We therefore conclude that considering defendant's usage of an incorrect date, defendant's QME panel request was invalid. Accordingly, the issuance of panel 7823574 is similarly invalid.

  Defendant's QME panel request was premature due to incorrect date usage, making the panel invalid and entitling applicant to a replacement chiropractic panel.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16929084 · 2025-12-22 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ found that applicant was not an employee because he was not receiving wages irrespective of profits.2 The parties fail to acknowledge that the section goes on to specifically address general partners, without limiting language, that have not elected to be excluded from coverage.3 Whether applicant was a working member of a partnership or a general partner, he would be automatically covered by the division regardless. Section 3352 (a)(17)(A) specifically provides that general partners may be excluded from the definition of employee, and thereby excluded from coverage, only when they execute "a written waiver of his or her rights under this chapter stating under penalty of perjury that the person is a qualifying general partner." (Lab. Code, § 3352(a)(17))4 Neither party appears to dispute that applicant is a general partner that remained a practicing attorney, thereby meeting the definition of employee either under the general definition or the explicit inclusion of subsection f of Section 3351. Thus, this issue is not an employment issue, but a coverage issue.

  The WCJ found applicant was not an employee under section 3351(f) because he did not receive wages irrespective of profits, but the Appeals Board found that as a general partner who did not waive coverage, he is covered by the division. The matter involves insurance coverage and must be submitted to arbitration before further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8948890 · 2025-10-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we agree with the WCJ that lien claimant did not meet its burden to prove that the medical treatment services provided to applicant were reasonable and necessary. As such, we deny lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration.

  Lien claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical treatment services provided were reasonable and necessary, as required by Labor Code and Board precedent. No evidence was submitted showing the treatment was supported by MTUS or other guidelines.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ1341476 · 2025-08-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4(Lab. Code, § 3600(10), bold added.)2 Therefore, defendant held the initial burden to establish its "post-termination defense" to

  The record was insufficient to determine whether the post-termination defense applied or whether an exception under section 5412 applied, so the case was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12880191 · 2024-11-18 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6If a WCJ determines that there is good cause, such as illness, a WCJ may allow a party to appear electronically even if the request is made on the day of trial and especially when, as here, the requesting party has diligently appeared at the proceedings. To the extent that the WCJ relied on a "14 day rule," her decision is without merit because the so called "14 day rule" is an underground regulation and not enforceable. (Rea v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Milbauer) (2005) [127 CalApp.4th 625 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 312].) As set forth in Milbauer, enforcement of rules that are not properly adopted by way of the rule- making process in sections 5307 and 5307.4 violates due process.

  WCJ denied lien claimant's representative's request to appear electronically based on an unenforceable '14 day rule' and proceeded with lien trial without lien claimant present, violating due process; WCJ also failed to issue a Notice of Intention to dismiss and disregarded lien claimant's evidence, warranting reconsideration and rescission of the decision.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12669508 · 2024-10-22 · San Francisco District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitions for reconsideration of the Arbitrator's Findings and Award issued by arbitrator in this matter on April 30, 2021. In that decision, the arbitrator found that applicant sustained injury to his upper and lower extremities arising out of and in the course of his employment as janitor by defendant, Flagship Airport Services, Inc., on June 20, 2019, resulting in permanent disability of 2%, but no need for further medical treatment.

  The arbitrator's apportionment was reconsidered and the parties settled with a Compromise and Release approved by the WCAB panel, indicating resolution in favor of the applicant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8965291 · 2024-05-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett halted trial proceedings in eight cases by filing petitions for reconsideration that were indisputably without merit and filed for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay. Most of these petitions were filed on the morning of trial without any advance notice to the court, opposing counsel, or witnesses. Their conduct was deliberate, which is evidenced by both the pattern of filing such petitions in eight separate cases and their failure to appear in each of these cases after the petition for reconsideration was filed.

  The petitions for reconsideration were filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, were indisputably without merit, and caused significant delays and resource waste, warranting full sanctions.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8965291 · 2024-04-10Sanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.20NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that absent written objection in which good cause to the contrary is demonstrated, within twenty (20) days plus five (5) additional days for mailing (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1), 10600) after service of this Notice that pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and Appeals Board Rule 10421 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421) the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board will order SUSAN GARRETT (CA BAR #195580), to pay sanctions and reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and costs, as follows:

  Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett repeatedly filed petitions for reconsideration of non-final orders, with the apparent intent to delay trial dates after being denied continuances, despite prior notice that such petitions were improper and sanctionable.

  Official decision · page 20 →
• ADJ15382349 · 2024-04-10Sanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted removal in these matters on our own motion to provide an opportunity to study and address the issues of sanctions and costs under Labor Code section 58131. Having completed our review, we now issue an Order of Consolidation and a Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions and Costs (En Banc).

  The Appeals Board found that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, which were indisputably without merit, justifying sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12880191 · 2024-02-05 · Pomona District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7With these principles in mind, the conclusion that lien claimant should be denied relief due to filing of the lien under the incorrect ADJ number is simply not legally supportable. We are persuaded that the interests of substantial justice are better served by adjudication on the merits of the lien, rather than dismissal by administrative fiat for technical noncompliance in pleadings. Additionally, defendant offers no persuasive argument for prejudice, and we discern none in the record. As noted above, both cases involve the same applicant, the same employer, the same insurer, and the same defense attorney. Moreover, defendant entered into a C&R that resolved the issue of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; bilateral upper extremities; knees; neuro; and sleep in Case No. ADJ12880191, with no mention of the left eye, and defendant resolved the issue of injury to the knees in an Unassigned Case No., so that defendant's claim that only the left eye is at issue in ADJ12880191 is meritless, and borders on frivolous.

  The WCJ's denial of lien claimant's lien due to incorrect case number was found legally unsupported; substantial justice favors adjudication on the merits; no prejudice shown to defendant; cases involve same parties and should be consolidated.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ17462575 · 2024-01-29 · Eureka District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In summary, applicant asks us to extend the premises line rule to circumstances where he has offered no evidence that he suffered an injury at a time that the employer-employee relationship existed. Applicant simply did not present sufficient evidence that he injured himself on premises controlled or owned by his employer, and we decline to extend the premises line rule to the facts of this case.

  Applicant failed to prove that the injury occurred on premises owned or controlled by his employer; the property was owned by a separate entity and not controlled by Arcata Forest Products.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9626208 · 2023-10-23 · Redding District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, as the WCJ stated in the Opinion on Decision, Dr. Sommer "...does not address the requirements set out in Escobedo, in that his opinions generally leave out,... the necessary explanation of why and how the pathology and prior injury result in the current disability, and why and how these conditions lead him to choose the percentages that he does." (F&A, pp. 7 § 8, Opinion on Decision.) In his Report, the WCJ explained, "Considering that the missing analysis here is required by Escobedo to find that the opinion is substantial evidence, these faults are fatal to the substantiality of his opinion on apportionment of disability in the back." (Report, p. 3.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the AME Dr. Sommer's opinions on apportionment lacked the necessary explanation required by Escobedo to be substantial evidence, leading to rescission and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →

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.

• TESTAN LAW
• Testan Law
• Testan 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.