top of page

Significant and Noteworthy Cases

Lewis, Marenstein, Wicke, Sherwin & Lee, LLP take great pride in the number of cases that have not only resulted in substantial recovery for its clients, but also for establishing legal precedent in areas of complex law and litigation.

Several large verdicts are highlighted below: 


$2 Million

$2 Million for a 13 year-old boy who got an electrical shock and suffered orthopedic injuries at a baseball park when came into contact with a defective, field lighting system.

$1.66 Million

$1.66 Million for a pedestrian who suffered a mild traumatic brain injury when she was struck by an automobile in a parking garage.

$1.55 Million

$1.55 Million for two on-duty sheriff deputies who were injured when their vehicle was rear-ended by a drunk driver.

$1.48 Million

$1.48 Million for a construction worker who sustained orthopedic injuries in a construction-site accident.

$1.3 Million

$1.3 Million for a construction worker who was injured when he fell through the roof of a construction project.

$1 Million

$1 Million for an on-duty sheriff’s lieutenant who suffered orthopedic injuries when his vehicle was rear-ended by a negligent driver.

$1 Million

$1 Million for a Blue Line passenger who suffered orthopedic injuries when an MTA Bus ignored a crossing signal, and collided with the Blue Line train.

$1 Million

$1 Million for a police officer who suffered orthopedic injuries when he slipped on a clear carpet protector that had been left on a linoleum floor at a police station by 3rd party, carpet cleaning technicians.

Workers’ Compensation Cases

WCAB Victories

The firm was recently out in front in securing major victories before the WCAB in San Francisco. In two cases dealing with claims against the Subsequent Injuries Fund (SIF), Lewis, Marenstein, Wicke, Sherwin & Lee obtained favorable decisions on behalf of our clients that clarified requirements for eligibility against the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund. In both cases, the primary issue was whether the prior disability should be “added” to the subsequent injury in arriving at the final disability percentage for the injured worker. SIF has asserted for years that the percentages are not added but rather “combined” using a formula that makes it difficult to qualify for SIF benefits and severely limits the benefits for those that do qualify. Lewis, Marenstein, Wicke,Sherwin & Lee, have been a leader in establishing case law in SIF claim and many law firms had been anxiously awaiting a decision by the WCAB providing guidance to the trial courts.

SIF Victories

In Kwasigroch v. SIF, senior partner Gold Lee convinced a three commissioner panel that the disabilities should be added and not combined. More recently, in Todd v. SIF, Lewis, Marenstein, Wicke, Sherwin & Lee, received an En Banc (all 5 commissioners) unanimous decision confirming that disabilities should be added. The Todd decision puts to rest the argument SIF has asserted for years on “adding v combining” and gives clarity to injured workers and their attorneys on moving forward with claims against SIF. The Todd decision is perhaps one of the most significant decisions to come from the WCAB in the past five years.

Disability Pension Cases

Weissman v. Los Angeles County Employees

In Weissman v. Los Angeles County Employees’ Retirement Association, Thomas Wicke was able to successfully argue that a person could apply for a service connected disability retirement after previously taking a service pension. This published Decision opened the doors for employees who became aware of their disabilities after they retired to then attempt to convert their service pension to a disability pension.

Dankins vs City of Los Angeles

Jackson vs State of California

In Jackson v. State of California, the California Court of Appeal issued a published decision upholding the concept that apportionment of permanent disability to non-industrial factors is precluded in any case where a presumptive injury occurs. The decision in 2008, was argued by Robert Sherwin as a “Friend of the Court” on behalf of 28,000 safety members in the State of California.

Raygoza v. County of Los Angeles

In Dakins v. City of Los Angeles, Michael Roberts was successfully able to argue that under article 18 of the Los Angeles City Charter, an injured police officer or fire fighter could not be denied a finding of service connection by the Fire and Police Pension Commission when the injured worker had previously been granted through workers’ compensation a finding that the injury was industrial. Dakins significantly strengthened the law that the City of Los Angeles must treat its fire fighters and police officers consistently by granting service connected disability retirement when the City had previously granted workers’ compensation benefits.

In Raygoza v. County of Los Angeles, Thomas Wicke was able to successfully argue to the Court of Appeal that Ronald Raygoza was entitled to his job and retroactive benefits after his disability retirement had been denied and the County of Los Angeles refused to reinstate him to a position consistent with his work restrictions. This case reinforced a prior Decision against the County of Los Angeles handled by Michael Roberts in Leili v. County of Los Angeles where the Los Angeles County Fire Department failed to reinstate Mr. Leili after work restrictions had been placed upon him by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Not only did Mr. Leili obtain the right to his job, but also retroactive salary and benefits.

bottom of page