In the Trenches: A Recap of the Winter 2025 California Applicant’s Attorneys Association Convention?
July 2025
On March 27, 2025 Jonathan Liff, Partner, Sacramento and John Orman, Partner, Fresno presented intel they obtained from our adversaries while attending the four-day California Applicant’s Attorneys Association’s (CAAA) Winter 2025 Convention(Jan. 23-26) and consisting of over 20 hours of material presented by applicant’s attorneys, medical legal examiners, vocational experts and judges. The goal of the convention was to provide applicant’s attorneys with a “Roadmap to Excellence.” For the defense, attending the convention provided great insight into what aspects of litigation applicants are going to emphasize and what trends they are going to follow when handling cases going forward. The purpose of this article is to re-emphasize some key take-aways from the material presented at CAAA Winter 2025.
General Points of Emphasis at CAAA 2025
Back to Basics- Getting the Application Right
A fair amount of time was spent on getting the Application for Adjudication right initially, to avoid filing an Amended Application or overlooking an injured body part. Great emphasis was placed on pleading any and all possible injuries, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, sleep disorders, hypertension and headaches.
In addition, presenters provided applicant attorneys with instructions to provide to their clients when communicating with their treating physician in order to trigger additional diagnostics, such as sleep studies. Additional information was provided on increasing impairment for traumatic brain injuries by alleging depression, dementia, emotional behavior disorders and more.
Thus, the unsurprising trend from applicant’ attorneys is to plead as many injuries as possible thereby increasing costs to defend disputed body parts.
From a defense perspective, the marching orders provided at CAAA could seem overwhelming. Therefore, it is imperative that a record of applicant’s alleged injuries is created via deposition of the applicant and a medical legal evaluation.
Objections to Venue
Applicant attorneys, generally in Southern California, are increasingly representing applicants in other parts of the state. They are tactically filing Applications for Adjudication with their home Board, usually hundreds of miles aways from where the applicant resides and where the employer is located. Under California Labor Code section 5501.5, subdivision (c), defendants may object to venue within 30-days from receipt of the Notice of Application to automatically transfer venue to the appropriate location, closer to the applicant’s home and/or location of the employer — away from the applicant’s atorney’s “home base.”
The presenters at CAAA suggest applicant’s attorneys should reply to our objection and make an argument for good cause to have the venue in the county where applicant’s attorney’s office is located. Although we do not believe applicant’s attorneys will be successful in their objections to our venue objections, their suggestion reflects the significance they ascribe to venue, rightfully so.
Defendants need to ensure that objections to venue are timely filed within 30-days of receipt of the Notice of Application. When referring cases to defense counsel, if venue is at issue, it is imperative that referrals are made as quickly as possible so that objections to venue will be timely and transfer of venue will be automatic.
Finally, numerous cases were discussed at CAAA. The most pertinent cases to be aware of are as follows:
D’Allesandro vs. City of Menifee (2024) Cal.Wrk.Comp. PDLEXIS 351, and
Kreza vs City of Costa Mesa FD (2024) Cal.Wrk.Comp. PD LEXIS 294
In D’Allesandro, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reversed the Trial Judge, finding that the employer had directly or impliedly required officers to stay in shape where applicant was a police officer assigned to a defense tactic training unit. Here, applicant was injured in a jiu-jitsu class, and the activity was considered work-related. Thus, the Ezzy test was satisfied, which requires that the (1) employee subjectively believe the activity was required by the employer and (2) that subjective belief was objectively reasonable. The minority opinion took issue with the fact that there were no physical fitness requirements for the position; however, the majority did not lend much weight to the lack of requirements because the defense training position and explicit objectives were physical defense.
Similarly in Kreza, Applicant was a firefighter who was riding a bicycle and was struck by a car and died. At Trial there was evidence that the fire department required employees to participate in a fitness program which included bicycling, and provided for discipline for not meeting physical fitness criteria.
The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reversed the Trial Judge’s non-industrial decision, ruling that applicant’s belief was objectively reasonable in light of the discipline that would have been administered if the physical fitness requirements were not met.
The key takeaway here is that if there are facts to support a reasonable nexus between the off-duty recreational activity and the requirements of the job, there is a great likelihood that the off-duty activity is going to be found work related even absent explicit physical fitness requirements.
Cano v. Ecology 2024 Cal.Wrk.Comp PD LEXIS 314
In Cano, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board took issue with the applicant’s vocational expert improperly inserting medical opinions concerning applicant’s restrictions. The applicant’s vocational expert relied on arguing that per Vigil the CVC was not applicable, but the medical legal evaluators did not discuss this. The Board rescinded the Trial decision and remanded it back to the Trial level with very specific instructions: “As we have very recently clarified the roles of the medical and vocational evaluators and the proper method of CVC rebuttal, it would appear prudent to allow further development of the record on this issue.”
The key takeaway here is that vocational experts continue to provide opinions outside their area of expertise despite the recent en banc case of Nunes. It is critical that these opinions be challenged as the Board seems more than willing to remind applicant’s attorneys that their vocational experts are overreaching. Defendants should also ensure that their vocational experts are not overreaching.
Should you wish to discuss any of the above material, please do not hesitate to contact your LFLM attorney.
Written By:
Jesus Pereda, Esq., of our LFLM-Fresno Office
Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi, LLP.