California WCABLaw firm
Matian Law Group
Matian Law Group is named in 15 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Temporary disability (3), AOE/COE (1) and Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Santa Ana.
- Decisions
- 15
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 5
- District offices
- 9
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.
- 343%
- 114%
- 114%
- 114%
- 114%
7 decisions across the groups shown
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 14 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.
- ADJ18926429 · 2026-04-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Applicant claimed injury to her bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, back, knees, arms, and shoulders, while employed as a customer service representative/billing representative by defendant TalentBurst, Inc. from June 6, 2022 to December 26, 2023. Defendant denies injury AOE/COE.
The WCJ found insufficient substantial medical evidence on causation and ordered further development of the record with supplemental QME reporting; the Appeals Board upheld this and denied reconsideration.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ9298733 · 2026-04-06 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.91) Applicant met its burden to show that the Defendant did not pay the Award timely and properly; 2) No finding could be made at this juncture whether the Defendant should be sanctioned per the allegations in the Petition for Sanctions until the record was developed; and 3) The Defendant's Petition for Sanctions could not be heard at this trial as sanctions against the Applicant were not raised in the Pretrial Conference Statement and the Petition was not filed until the day of the trial.17
The WCJ found that the defendant did not pay the Award timely and properly based on the plain language of the Compromise & Release and the Joint Findings of Fact and Orders, which the WCAB panel adopted and upheld on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ12784423 · 2025-09-08 · Anaheim District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.23. Negar Matian (CA BAR# 223868) and Matian Law Group acted in and utilized bad faith tactics in their discovery practices that were frivolous and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
The Board found that Negar Matian and Matian Law Group acted in bad faith with frivolous discovery tactics causing unnecessary delay, warranting sanctions and costs.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ12784423 · 2024-06-17 · Santa Ana 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 grant reconsideration, issue a Notice of Intent to amend the Amended Findings and Order to include Negar Matian (CA BAR #223868), in their individual capacity and Matian Law Group. Barring receipt of a response showing good cause to the contrary, we will amend the Amended Findings and Order pursuant to this Notice, and otherwise affirm the decision of March 26, 2024.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the Matian Law Group engaged in bad faith tactics causing unnecessary delay, justifying sanctions and costs.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ13411734 · 2024-01-26 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3commencing on August 26, 2017. However, the time to raise and present evidence on this issue was prior to the issuance of the December 22, 2022 decision. Having failed to raise or present evidence on this issue, and having failed to seek reconsideration from the December 22, 2022 decision, defendant cannot now say that applicant was temporarily disabled in the cumulative case during any period other than January 19, 2021 to November 10, 2021. (Lab. Code, § 5904.) The only way defendant could show it was entitled to a credit for overlapping periods of temporary disability is to show that applicant was temporarily disabled in the specific injury case at some point during the period between January 19, 2021 and November 10, 2021. But defendant admits in its Petition that this is not the case. We therefore affirm the WCJ's decision that applicant is entitled to full payment of the award of temporary disability indemnity in case ADJ13411734.
The WCAB affirmed the award of temporary disability indemnity for the period 1/19/2021 to 11/10/2021, rejecting defendant's claim for credit for overlapping TTD payments in case ADJ11084519 because defendant failed to timely raise or present evidence. The WCAB deferred the issues of penalties and attorneys' fees for further analysis and explanation by the WCJ.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ9682348 · 2023-01-17 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2020 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the August 24, 2016 amendment to the application was barred by the statute of limitations. The applicant sought to amend the application to allege that he sustained a cumulative trauma rather than a specific injury.
The amended application alleging a cumulative trauma injury relates back to the original application because the medical evidence supports a cumulative trauma injury and the claim was accepted and benefits paid accordingly, so the statute of limitations does not bar the amendment.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ13407033 · 2021-07-22 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 28, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period from January 16, 2020, through November 26, 2020, and that he was entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits for that period of time.
The substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Holmes and PTP Dr. Stoller supports that applicant was temporarily totally disabled due to the December 21, 2019 injury during the awarded period, despite not having reached MMI status.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ13323965 · 2026-02-11 · Los Angeles District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant contends that the WCJ erred in refusing to accept the exhibits of lien claimant into evidence because the WCJ's order to file exhibits 20 days in advance was never served upon lien claimant.
The WCJ's refusal to admit lien claimant's exhibits was based on a 20-day advance filing rule, but the lien claimant was not served with the hearing minutes setting the trial date, violating due process and equity principles, leading to rescission of the order and remand for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12557876 · 2025-05-12 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal filed August 2, 2024, of the minutes of hearing issued on July 16, 2024, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.1
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner and therefore dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12777220 · 2025-01-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5(i) Indisputably without merit; (ii) Done solely or primarily for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; and/or (iii) Done solely or primarily for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation... *** (7) Presenting a claim or a defense, or raising an issue or argument, that is not warranted under existing law... (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b).) Here, defendant filed a subsequent Petition that in effect basically duplicated its original petition for reconsideration. We admonish defendant's attorneys Negar Matian and the Matian Law Group, defendant employer Pacific Dental Services, LLC, and defendant insurer Arch Indemnity Insurance, as administered by Gallagher Bassett, for filing duplicative and meritless pleadings at the WCAB. This conduct could subject the offending party to sanctions pursuant to WCAB Rule 10421(b) as set forth above. Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration.
The petition was dismissed because it was untimely and improperly sought to relitigate issues already decided by the Appeals Board, which is barred unless the party is newly aggrieved.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ12473896 · 2023-11-09 · Los Angeles 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 for Removal 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 → - ADJ13282912 · 2023-09-18 · Santa Barbara 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
Petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal; reconsideration deemed adequate remedy; WCJ's analysis persuasive.
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.
- MATIAN LAW GROUP
- Matian Law Group
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.