Wai, Connor & Hamidzadeh, LLP

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
• Marina del Rey 8
• Oxnard 3
• San Diego 3
• Long Beach 2
• Oakland 2
• Riverside 2
• Sacramento 2
• San Francisco 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Santa Rosa 1
• Stockton 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.

• 17 for the defense
• 13 for the applicant
• 7 returned for more record

Counted over 35 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.

• ADJ19483679 · 2026-05-15 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4On February 9, 2026, the WCJ issued his Finding of Fact, determining that "California does not have subject matter jurisdiction" over applicant's claim. (Finding of Fact, at p. 2.) The Opinion on Decision, issued concurrently, explains that the WCJ's decision was based upon a finding that applicant was hired in Florida, worked in Florida, and sustained her alleged injuries there. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5§ 6.) The WCJ noted that the employment contract, while referencing the laws of California, did not reference workers' compensation law. (Id. at pp. 5, 7.)

  Applicant was hired in Florida, worked in Florida, and sustained injuries in Florida; no statutory basis for California subject matter jurisdiction exists despite contract law choice of California law and remote supervision from California.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9787530 · 2026-03-03 · Oxnard District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6However, as the WCJ's Report observes, following the March 28, 2014 injury date, applicant sought and received treatment from within defendant's MPN including evaluation and diagnosis by Eileen Lee, D.O. (Ex. A, Report of Eileen Lee, D.O., various dates), surgical intervention performed by Clarence Petrie, M.D. (Ex. D, Reports of Clarence Petrie, M.D., various dates), and later, follow-up consultation with Raye Bellinger, M.D. (Ex. E, Reports of Raye Bellinger, M.D., various dates). The evidence thus supports defendant's timely provision of medical treatment in response to applicant's March 28, 2014 injury. Moreover, lien claimant identifies no request for medical treatment submitted by applicant which defendant neglected or refused. (See Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1423 (Appeals Board en banc).)

  The evidence showed that defendant provided timely and necessary medical treatment within its MPN for the admitted injury, and there was no denial of care or evidence supporting the need for self-procured treatment at employer expense.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16197947 · 2026-01-26 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant JD2 Incorporated, insured by Federal Insurance Company c/o Gallagher Bassett (defendant), petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued and served by the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on September 24, 2024. In that decision, the WCA found that applicant, while employed as an ironworker from June [16]1, 2020 to June 16, 2021, sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, elbow and wrists, with the issue of injury to his respiratory system deferred. The WCA further found applicant's knowledge and first date of disability of his cumulative trauma pursuant to Labor Code2 section 5412 was June 17, 2021. Finally, the WCA found and awarded applicant temporary total disability (TTD) for the period June 17, 2021 through June 15, 2023, at a rate to be adjusted by the parties.

  The WCAB found the WCA erred in determining the date of injury and the evidence did not support the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11372081 · 2025-11-17 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant Webcor Construction, insured by Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford (defendant) each seek reconsideration of the August 28, 2025 Joint Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in Case No. ADJ11372081 that applicant, while employed as a day laborer on March 28, 2018, sustained industrial injury to his head, headaches, right shoulder, neck, low back, TMJ, left ear tinnitus, both eyes, loss of consciousness, and psyche, resulting in permanent total disability. After application of nonindustrial apportionment, the WCJ awarded 80 percent permanent partial disability. In ADJ15621674, the WCJ found that applicant, while similarly employed from March 1, 2017 to May 18, 2018, sustained industrial injury in the form of bilateral hearing loss resulting in no ratable permanent disability. In ADJ11645081, applicant while similarly employed on June 20, 2017, sustained industrial injury to his left wrist, left index finger, and left hand, resulting in 14 percent permanent partial disability.

  The WCJ's apportionment analysis of Dr. Wilson was substantial evidence, but Dr. Friedman's apportionment analysis was not substantial evidence. Applicant's disabilities should be added rather than combined, resulting in a permanent disability percentage exceeding 100 percent, supporting a finding of permanent and total disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15013684 · 2025-08-01 · Santa Rosa District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814remanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on May 7, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&A, in pertinent part, found that defendant did not unreasonably delay payment of temporary disability, permanent disability, or reimbursement to Employment Development Department (EDD), but found that applicant was entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5813 and awarded attorney's fees with the parties to adjust.

  The WCJ found no unreasonable delay by defendant in reimbursing EDD and no basis for penalties, but awarded attorney's fees without sufficient findings of bad faith; the WCAB found insufficient evidence to support penalties or attorney's fees and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ4336912 · 2025-04-21 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8that her finding that there was no injury AOE/COE in case ADJ418935 was based only on "the findings of Dr. Einbund and the Applicant's credible testimony that the Applicant did not sustain an industrial injury during his employment with AIM Transportation." (Report, at p. 5.) We observe that it is the findings and orders that are ultimately enforceable as a judgment, not the Opinion. (See Lab. Code, § 5806, 5807.) Here, there is no indication in the findings in either case that the WCJ relied on Dr. Mas as anything other than a vocational expert. (See Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 (Nunes I) (Appeals Board en banc); Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894 (Nunes II) (Appeals Board en banc).) The WCJ's clarification in the Report is thus all that is needed to address defendant's contention.

  The WCJ found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment for AIM Transportation based on applicant's credible testimony and medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10393749 · 2024-11-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13Based on the foregoing, a Findings and Award Re: Medical Treatment was issued on August 9, 2024 and served on interested parties on August 12, 2024. That decision found that the reasoning in the Patterson significant panel decision (Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 910), applies to applicant's previously authorized assistance in the home, that the discontinuation of caregiving services in this case was a termination of services contrary to Patterson, that the caregiving services in this case are not subject to the UR process until a change in circumstances showing that the services are no longer reasonably required, and that it is defendant's, not applicant's, burden to prove such a change of circumstances, consistent with Patterson. The decision included an order that defendants reinstate and continue to provide to Ms.

  The WCAB applied the Patterson doctrine holding that the discontinuation of caregiving services was a termination contrary to Patterson, and that the defendant must prove a change in circumstances to cease services. The petition for reconsideration was denied because no such change was shown.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ10931911 · 2024-03-19 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814remanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ's decision failed to address the sole issue presented for trial, which, again, was: "Whether defendants are liable for costs, monetary sanctions, and attorney fees for their failure to object to Cost Petitioner's invoices." (MOH, October 9, 2023, p. 3.) In accordance with section 5313, Hamilton, and Garza, supra, we therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ to issue a new decision addressing the issue submitted for trial. In the new decision, the WCJ must make findings upon all facts involved in the controversy, cite to admitted evidence in support of each finding, and identify the authority upon which the opinion is based.

  The WCJ's decision failed to address the issue of defendant's liability for costs and sanctions due to failure to object to invoices, so the WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10919652 · 2024-01-23 · Marina del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3We agree with the WCJ that the applicant in this matter was not temporarily within this state doing work for his employer as a minimum of 23.6% or 35% of his deliveries were made in California. Additionally, it is undisputed that the incident causing applicant's injury occurred at a California truck stop and applicant received medical attention in California. (Cf. Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1126 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257] [location of injury and medical treatment are factors to consider in deciding if California workers' compensation applies].) Therefore, California has a strong interest in covering applicant under California's workers' compensation system.

  California has a legitimate and substantial interest in protecting injured workers and the applicant was regularly in California doing business for the employer, making California jurisdiction appropriate.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10826263 · 2023-08-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Based on the provisions of section 5405, relevant to this matter, the one-year limitations period starts on the date of injury or the last date that any benefits were provided. Our review of the trial record indicates that applicant's testimony pertaining to the section 5412 date of injury is inconsistent. She testified that her doctors told her that her symptoms were caused by her work, and she testified that the doctors never said her condition was work related. (MOH/SOE, October 15, 2019, p. 4.) Also, applicant testified that she did not have any problems with her back or knees at the time she started her employment with defendant and she testified that she injured her back and right knee in a motor vehicle accident in 2006 or 2007 causing limitations, at the time she started her employment with defendant, of no bending, no crawling, no kneeling, no lifting over 25 pounds, no stairs, and no carrying heavy weights due to problems with her back and knees. (MOH/SOE, June 26, 2019, p. 3 and pp.

  The record lacked substantial evidence to determine the date of injury or the start of the limitations period, and whether the employer provided a claim form to toll the statute of limitations, so the WCAB remanded for further proceedings to develop the record.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11005247 · 2023-06-06 · Oxnard District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

  The Board found no evidence of bad faith by the defendant in contesting or delaying payment of medical-legal charges, thus denying sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2466188 · 2023-02-14 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We now turn to the merits of the case. In addition to the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we note that the issue of cumulative trauma to the bilateral knees did not arise until agreed medical examiner (AME) John Lane, M.D., opined about it in his March 2, 2008 report. (Exhibit 9, at p. 2.) Therefore, the requisite knowledge necessary for determination of the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 did not exist until that time. While defendant cites to a 1999 report by William Bowman, M.D., as evidence of cumulative trauma, that report is not in evidence and is only briefly summarized by Dr. Lane in his July 19, 2007 report. (Exhibit 8 at p. 7.) Defendant appears to be arguing that applicant suffered a cumulative trauma to her knees during her employment with Basic American and a separate cumulative trauma to her hips during her employment with ConAgra. However, the medical evidence in the record, as summarized by the WCJ in the Report, supports a single cumulative trauma through 2005.

  The medical evidence, including opinions from Dr. John Lane and Dr. Hall, supports that the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury to her bilateral knees through her employment with Basic American and ConAgra, with liability shared by ConAgra due to continuing employment through 2005.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• WAI, CONNOR & HAMIDZADEH
• WAI & CONNOR
• WAI, CONNOR & HAMIDZADEH, LLP
• WAI & CONNOR, LLP
• Wai, Connor & Hamidzadeh, LLP
• WAI CONNOR & HAMIDZADEH
• Wai Connor & Hamidzadeh
• WAI CONNOR
• WAI CONNOR & HAMIDZADEH LLP
• LAW OFFICE OF WAI & CONNOR
• Wai, Connor & Hamidzadeh
• Wai & Connor

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.