The Oaks Law Group

What they litigate

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

• Apportionment3
• Permanent disability rating2
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Los Angeles 2
• Oxnard 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 6 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record
• 1 for the applicant

Counted over 9 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.

• ADJ18356537 · 2025-05-12 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.6The WCJ notes that it would not have been possible for LAUSD to alleviate the danger if the manner in which that occurs is actual repairs to the property because that is the responsibility of the City of Los Alamitos. While LAUSD did report the damaged area to the City of Los Alamitos well in advance of the date of injury, they did not provide a warning to their employees. However, following review of the evidence, including the condition of the property on the date of injury, as well as testimony, any concurrent negligence on the part of LAUSD is not to a degree greater than a de minimis amount.

  The WCJ found employer's concurrent negligence was not greater than de minimis, thus defendant entitled to credit. The WCAB granted reconsideration for further review but did not overturn this finding yet.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13906645 · 2022-09-02 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Turning first to applicant's contention that the WCJ erroneously failed to find him entitled

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ1427412 · 2022-04-11 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The trial was scheduled before the undersigned judge on December 10, 2021, at which time the matter was submitted on the record, with no testimony. The undersigned then issued a Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision, on January 19, 2022, finding that the applicant was entitled to an un-apportioned award of 9% PD, pursuant to the findings of the Panel QME Dr. Bashner. Opinion on Decision, page 2, and Findings and Award, both dated January 19, 2022.

  WCJ properly relied on Panel QME Dr. Bashner's rating and did not err in awarding 9% PD.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ7678058 · 2022-01-25 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3a) That this WCJ erred in relying on the opinions of the internal AME, Richard Hyman, M.D., on the issue of apportionment of applicant's internal disability; and

  The WCJ found that the opinions of the internal AME, Dr. Richard Hyman, and the neurologic Panel QME, Dr. Lawrence Richman, were not substantial evidence to support the apportionment of the internal disability and neurologic disability respectively.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14728798 · 2024-06-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8216789 · 2023-02-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ rescinded the original orders and issued an order vacating within the 15- day period, rendering the Petition moot. Since jurisdiction has been transferred to the Appeals Board, the Petition for Reconsideration will be dismissed.

  The WCJ rescinded the original orders within the 15-day jurisdiction period, rendering the petition moot and requiring dismissal.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ14814526 · 2022-08-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

  The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for settlement review because the case was pending on reconsideration and the parties reached a proposed settlement.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13018964 · 2021-10-19 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions,

  The WCJ's July 26, 2021 Findings of Fact regarding videotaping of applicant's deposition resolved an intermediate procedural issue, not a final order; removal denied as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown and reconsideration deemed adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10762069 · 2021-10-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  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.

• THE OAKS LAW GROUP
• The Oaks Law Group
• The Oaks Law Group, Inc.
• THE OAKS LAW GROUP, INC.

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.