[gview file=”http://www.sgvblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/11-2019.pdf” force=1]
Defending employers, insurance carriers and third party administrators since 1962
PRISCILLA SHIRKHANLOO
EDUCATION
PRISCILLA SHIRKHANLOO graduated Cum Laude from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2007 with a Bachelor of Arts in History and a minor in Middle East and North African Studies. She continued on to receive her Juris Doctorate from Chapman University Law School in 2012 where she was in the top 16% of her class. Ms. Shirkhanloo was admitted to the California State Bar in 2012.
BACKGROUND
Before joining the Law Offices of Samuelsen, Gonzalez, Valenzuela & Brown, LLP, Ms. Shirkhanloo was a Supervising Attorney for a large defense firm in Orange, representing clients in all aspects of workers’ compensation defense. While Ms. Shirkhanloo attended law school, she started her career as a Law Clerk for Paris Law Group. There, she drafted legal documents on various issues in civil law, including worker’s compensation and employment discrimination. Ms. Shirkhanloo also conducted legal research and writing projects. During the summer of her second year and throughout her third year of law school, Ms. Shirkhanloo was a Law Clerk for Lanak & Hanna. There, she wrote memoranda and Motions for construction matters; complied reports and graphics of the firm’s findings to be used during expert witness testimony; and drafted and responded to discovery.
RECOGNITIONS
- Dean’s Honor List, 4 quarters, UCLA
- CALI Excellence for the Future Award for Property II
- L.S. Palmos Award, 2012, Chapman Law School
- OCBA Barbri Law Review Scholarship Recipient, 2012, Chapman Law School
- Certificate in Environment, Land Use and Real Estate Law, 2012, Chapman Law School
Ms. Shirkhanloo joined the law offices of Samuelsen, Gonzalez, Valenzuela & Brown, LLP as a Partner 2017 where she handles Workers’ Compensation Defense in our Newport Beach and San Diego offices.
Recent Take Nothing Award – Jeffrey J. Whitelaw – Mar 2017
Applicant, a 58 year-old, claimed they suffered a right knee injury while working at a landfill as an employee of a placement agency. The claim was denied following an employer-level investigation.
Applicant received significant conservative medical treatment and underwent a right knee MRI revealing significant damage. Applicant’s treating physician issued multiple reports indicating that applicant’s condition remained temporarily totally disabling. He also referred applicant to a specialist and thought applicant would ultimately require surgery on their knee. The parties also went to a PQME who opined that applicant’s injury was consistent with the described mechanism of injury.
Prior to trial, the parties had agreed to settle this matter for a $20,000.00 Compromise and Release. Applicant, however, then fired his attorney and retained new counsel. Applicant’s new attorney informed defendants that the case value was closer to $100,000.00, given the nearly 15 months of TTD potentially owed as well as expected permanent disability and future medical care.
After further settlement negotiations stalled, the parties conducted the AOE/COE trial. Applicant testified on his behalf and claimed that he had stepped into a sinkhole while working at the landfill causing the right knee injury. Applicant further testified that, immediately after injuring himself, they informed a co-worker, the landfill supervisor and their supervisor. Defendants presented two witnesses: applicant’s co-worker and their supervisor. Both denied that applicant had reported the injury on that day. Applicant’s supervisor further testified applicant had later come to his office and was paid for the week.
After hearing testimony, the trial Judge, ruled in defendants’ favor and issued a Take Nothing. The Judge found a number of inconsistencies in applicant’s testimony and found that defendants’ witnesses testified credibly.
Order Obtained – Julie Lam – Jan 2017
Order Obtained for Imposing Sanctions on Lien Claimant, Pursuant to their Petition
Lien claimant filed a DOR for a lien conference. We appeared in Los Angeles, where were able to review their bill and discover that they had filed their lien more than 10 years after their last date of service. We made a good faith offer to resolve their lien, as they had passed the statute of limitations. This was rejected, and they indicated they were requesting discovery. We stated that if they continued the lien conference for additional information, we would be filing a petition for costs and sanctions as they were aware they were now past the statute to collect on their decade-old lien.
Nevertheless, we then appeared at the continued lien conference in Oxnard, petition for costs and sanctions in hand. At the Oxnard Board, lo and behold lien claimant does not appear. The Judge then indicated that lien claimant had in fact been dismissed and was served the dismissal, stating that lien claimant’s behavior were sanctionable and so we amended our Petition for Costs and Sanctions even further.
He eventually issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Sanctions against lien claimant and their representative, both of whom were served with the original and amended petitions, as well as the NOIs, with no objections.