The Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing provides representation to the disabled seeking Social Security and other disability benefits. The firm has its principal office in Santa Fe Springs, California conveniently located near the I-5 and I-605 interchange across the street from the Norwalk Metrolink station. Rohlfing & Kalagian serves the needs of clients in Long Beach, California near the end of the Blue Line. Both offices seek to enforce the rights of the disabled to benefits at all levels of administrative and court review. The offices have two partners, five associates, one attorney of counsel, and one retired member of the firm.
* Social Security
* Disability Benefits
* Initial Application
* Representation in Court
The Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing and Rohlfing & Kalagian handle over a thousand disability claims annually. The firms represent claimants for Social Security disability before the Social Security Administration at initial application, on reconsideration, at hearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals, before the Appeals Council on request for review, and before the courts. Both offices seek out to represent those claimants that the Social Security Administration has wrongfully denied through all levels of appeal. Many clients come to the offices for primary representation before the Social Security Administration. Lawyers from all over California request the attorneys take over representation at the Appeals Council, the United States District Court, and the United States Court of Appeals. The work of the firms has led to decisions from the courts that have changed the way in which the Social Security Administration must adjudicate claims for disability benefits from the District Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.
The members of the firm actively share their experience with other lawyers across in the nation in how to better represent claimants.
The Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing and Rohlfing & Kalagian offer two offices located in Santa Fe Springs, California and Long Beach, California. Our Santa Fe Springs office assists clients throughout California to include: Whittier, La Mirada, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, Montebello, Downey, Cerritos, Paramount, Compton, South Gate, Commerce, Bell, Bell Gardens, Brea, Fullerton, and surrounding cities. Our Long Beach office assists the South Bay, Paramount, Lakewood, and North Orange County.
We provide a no cost consultation on all disability claims and offer representation on a contingency fee basis. If you are seeking disability benefits, there will be no charge for attorney fees until we win your case.
I have presented briefs in three cases to the United States Supreme Court. I argued Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord to the United States Supreme Court in April 2003.
Supreme Court Decisions
-Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, U.S. (2003)
-Delta Family-Care Disability Survivorship Plan v. Regula, U.S. (2003) (memorandum disposition)
Court of Appeals Decisions
-Alford v. DCH Foundation Group Long-Term Life Ins. Co., 311 F.3d 955 (2002)
-Nord v. Black & Decker Disability Plan, 269 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 2002) vacated U.S. (2003)
-Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2001)
-Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2001)
-Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2001) vacated U.S. (2003)
-Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2000)
-Stewart v. Thorpe Holding Co. Profit Sharing Plan, 207 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) cert. denied, 531 U.S 1074 (2001)
-Silveira v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2000)
-Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1999)
-Chavez v. Department of Health and Human Services, 103 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 1996)
-Hearn v. Western Conf. of Teamsters Pens. Trust Fund, 68 F.3d 301 (9th Cir. 1995)
-Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562 (9th Cir. 1995)
-Ruffalo v. Patterson (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 341, 285 Cal.Rptr. 647
-Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152 (9th Cir. 1989)
-Sprow v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1989)
-MacDonald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 859 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1988)
-Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 846 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1988)
District Court Decisions
-Horizon Outdoor v. City Of Industry, 228 F. Supp.2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2002)
-Nickel v. Barnhart, 205 F.Supp.2d 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2002)
-Booth v. Barnhart, 181 F.Supp.2d 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2002)
-Alford v. DCH Foundation Group Long-Term Life Ins. Co., 144 F.Supp.2d 1183 (C.D. Cal. 2001) affirmed 311 F.3d 955 (2002)
-Hoffman v. Halter, 140 F.Supp.2d 1056 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
-Azami v. Apfel, 24 F.Supp.2d 1007 (C.D. Cal. 1998)
-Perez v. Chater, 17 F.Supp.2d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 1997)
-Payan v. Chater, 959 F.Supp. 1157 (C.D. Cal. 1997)
-Barbato v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin., 923 F.Supp. 1273 (C.D. Cal. 1996)
-Stanistreet v. Chater, 21 F.Supp.2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 1995)
-Wysocki v. Sullivan, 761 F.Supp. 1273 (C.D. Cal. 1991)
12631 E Imperial Highway
Santa Fe Springs CA 90670
There is no charge for the initial consultation.
Fees are contingent, typically 25% of past due benefits or $5,300; whichever is less for a hearing level case.
Monday through Friday
8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.,
1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Closed on all federal holidays.
Multiple staff speak Spanish.
Social Security Disability is the area that can have the biggest impact on people and represent the most number of people who need my help.
A claimant for Social Security benefits can present their own claim and achieve a certain level of success. When it comes to the hearing and appeals level, a claimant for benefits should have a lawyer or other qualified representative.
Yes. Clients need to complete significant documents in the prosecution of a Social Security claim.
There is limited guidance that counsel can provide to a claimant who does not want representation that would not in and of itself constitute the same work that would be required if representation were provided. An attorney could not charge or receive a fee for such advice, so providing those services would be problematic.
Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing
Owner and Proprietor of seven-attorney firm (Santa Fe Springs).
February 1, 1989 to present
Rohlfing & Kalagian, LLP
Partner of three-attorney satellite office (Long Beach).
June 1, 2003 to present
Rohlfing and Donnelly
Partner in two-attorney firm.
July 1, 1987 to January 31, 1989
Williams and Rohlfing
Partner in two-attorney firm.
December 10, 1985 to June 30, 1987
I have practiced law my entire adult life and dedicated myself to providing quality representation.
I have the ability to handle the hardest cases--cases typically no one else wants to handle.
We aggressively represent claimants before the Social Security Administration, District Court, and Court of Appeals.
I am active in the community, youth sports, and Church affairs.
* Nolo has confirmed that every member attorney has a valid license and is in good standing with the state agency that licenses lawyers. Any past disbarments and suspensions (with possible exceptions for minor violations or nonpayment of dues, in our discretion) will be indicated accordingly in the badge. Member attorneys are required to notify Nolo immediately if they become the subject of any disciplinary action by any state licensing agency.