Skip to Content
Kate L. Lozano

Kate L. Lozano

San Francisco Office Managing Partner
  • Direct Dial: (415) 403-4356
  • Phone: (415) 781-6676
  • Fax: (415) 781-6823
  • Physical Address: 255 California Street, Suite 850, San Francisco, CA 94111-4912

Kate L. Lozano

San Francisco Office Managing Partner
  • Direct Dial: (415) 403-4356
  • Phone: (415) 781-6676
  • Fax: (415) 781-6823
  • Physical Address: 255 California Street , Suite 850, San Francisco, CA 94111-4912
  • Overview

    Kate Lozano is the Managing Partner of our San Francisco office. She joined LFLM in 2007, and represents insurance carriers, third-party administrators, and self-insured employers in all areas of state workers’ compensation defense.

    Ms. Lozano regularly presents to clients on a variety of topics including PERS/CERL, California Labor Code Section 4850, settlement strategies, Dahl case law, voucher rules, affirmative defenses, and strategies for litigation of Joinder/Contribution.

    Ms. Lozano earned her undergraduate degree from University of California, Santa Cruz. She received her law degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law.

  • Industry Involvement

    Honors & Awards

    • CAAA SF Chapter Defense Attorney of the Year, 2019

    Publications

    • CEB Workers’ Compensation Practice Guide, Co-Editor for 2012 Updates, Chapter 14: Gathering Evidence; Chapter 4: Temporary Disability
    • Contributor to The Workers’ Compensation Newsletter

    Speaking Engagements

    • Section 132a, Serious and Willful Litigation from the Defense Perspective, 2015, California Applicant’s Attorneys Association
    • Liens, LFLM Spring Seminar, 2012
    • Workers’ Compensation Fraud Investigation/Material Misrepresentation, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, 2011
    • Ogilvie, LFLM Spring Seminar, 2008

    Representative Experience

    • Co-authored defendants’ briefs in Facundo-Guerrero v. WCAB; Nurserymen’s Exchange and Argonaut Insurance Company (case: A119814, 1st District, Division 4), and successfully argued that the Court of Appeal should uphold Section 4064.5(d) and the 24-visit chiropractic cap against constitutional challenge.