California WCABLaw firm

Appel Law Firm

Appel Law Firm is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to Apportionment (2), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Fresno. The firm it meets most often is Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (4).

Decisions: 9
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 6 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Who they face

3 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 6
Fresno 2
Santa Rosa 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

5 for the applicant
3 for the defense

Counted over 8 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ13319375 · 2024-12-20 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 27, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that materials from applicant's third party civil claim, including a November 30, 2022 report of Mechel Henry, M.D., transcript of Dr. Henry's February 21, 2023 deposition, transcript of the October 4, 2023 trial proceedings, and a medical presentation/demonstrative prepared by Dr. Henry, were inadmissible and unable to be submitted to the panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs) for review and comment. The WCJ found that the reporting, testimony, and exhibits were obtained for the sole purpose of contradicting the panel QMEs in the instant case and were not those of a consulting physician, or a treating physician, agreed medical evaluator, or panel QME, as contemplated under Labor Code1 section 4061(i).
The Appeals Board found that Dr. Henry's materials were not solely retained to rebut QMEs and were relevant medical evidence admissible under Labor Code section 4062.3(a), distinguishing Batten and following Jacobs, thus admissible to be sent to panel QMEs for review and comment.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7284005 · 2023-10-25 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.14We conclude that defendants have not met their burden of proof. We reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg do not rise to the level of substantial evidence of apportionment under Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [Appeals Board en banc]. Secondly, there is substantial evidence that the injuries sustained by applicant in the first motor vehicle accident left him permanently and totally disabled even before the second accident happened.
The Board found that the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg did not meet the substantial evidence standard for apportionment because they failed to provide detailed reasoning and medical explanation for their apportionment percentages.
Official decision · page 14 →
ADJ7284005 · 2023-03-02 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9NO APPORTIONMENT OF DISABILITY BETWEEN THE TWO INJURIES The issue is whether applicant's permanent and total disability may be legally apportioned between the injuries he sustained in the first and second motor vehicle accidents. The burden of proof on apportionment is with the defense. (Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1114 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].) We conclude that defendants have not met their burden of proof. We reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg do not rise to the level of substantial evidence of apportionment under Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [Appeals Board en banc]. Secondly, there is substantial evidence that the injuries sustained by applicant in the first motor vehicle accident left him permanently and totally disabled even before the second accident happened. Returning briefly to the WCJ's decision, we reiterate that in ostensibly apportioning 70% of the permanent and total disability to the first injury of April 16, 2010 and 30% to the second injury of July 14, 2011, the WCJ specified his reliance upon Dr. Feinberg's medical reports.
The Board found that the defense failed to meet the burden of proof on apportionment because the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg were not substantial evidence and lacked sufficient medical reasoning. The Board credited the opinions of Dr. Miner and Dr. Van de Bittner that the first injury alone caused permanent and total disability before the second injury occurred.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ16771687 · 2025-10-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on August 13, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board denied removal because the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ20199681 · 2025-04-01 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that there is substantial medical evidence to support the WCA's decision. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the record was not properly developed and substantial medical evidence was unclear, requiring further review.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10814219 · 2022-04-07 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Labor Code section 59091 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. Section 5315 provides for a 60 day period for the Appeals Board to confirm, adopt, modify or set aside the findings, order, decision or award of a workers' compensation administrative law judge. (Lab. Code, § 5315.) Here, defendant filed its petition on February 12, 2021, and we issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration on January 3, 2022.
The Appeals Board's failure to act within statutory time limits was due to misplaced file, tolling the time to act on the petition for reconsideration; therefore, the petition was properly dismissed as untimely.
Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

APPEL LAW FIRM
APPEL LAW FIRM LLP
APPEL LAW

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Appel Law Firm

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

3 for the defense

Counted over 8 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ13319375 · 2024-12-20 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 27, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that materials from applicant's third party civil claim, including a November 30, 2022 report of Mechel Henry, M.D., transcript of Dr. Henry's February 21, 2023 deposition, transcript of the October 4, 2023 trial proceedings, and a medical presentation/demonstrative prepared by Dr. Henry, were inadmissible and unable to be submitted to the panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs) for review and comment. The WCJ found that the reporting, testimony, and exhibits were obtained for the sole purpose of contradicting the panel QMEs in the instant case and were not those of a consulting physician, or a treating physician, agreed medical evaluator, or panel QME, as contemplated under Labor Code1 section 4061(i).

The Appeals Board found that Dr. Henry's materials were not solely retained to rebut QMEs and were relevant medical evidence admissible under Labor Code section 4062.3(a), distinguishing Batten and following Jacobs, thus admissible to be sent to panel QMEs for review and comment.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7284005 · 2023-10-25 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.14We conclude that defendants have not met their burden of proof. We reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg do not rise to the level of substantial evidence of apportionment under Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [Appeals Board en banc]. Secondly, there is substantial evidence that the injuries sustained by applicant in the first motor vehicle accident left him permanently and totally disabled even before the second accident happened.

The Board found that the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg did not meet the substantial evidence standard for apportionment because they failed to provide detailed reasoning and medical explanation for their apportionment percentages.

Official decision · page 14 →

ADJ7284005 · 2023-03-02 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9NO APPORTIONMENT OF DISABILITY BETWEEN THE TWO INJURIES The issue is whether applicant's permanent and total disability may be legally apportioned between the injuries he sustained in the first and second motor vehicle accidents. The burden of proof on apportionment is with the defense. (Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1114 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].) We conclude that defendants have not met their burden of proof. We reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg do not rise to the level of substantial evidence of apportionment under Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [Appeals Board en banc]. Secondly, there is substantial evidence that the injuries sustained by applicant in the first motor vehicle accident left him permanently and totally disabled even before the second accident happened. Returning briefly to the WCJ's decision, we reiterate that in ostensibly apportioning 70% of the permanent and total disability to the first injury of April 16, 2010 and 30% to the second injury of July 14, 2011, the WCJ specified his reliance upon Dr. Feinberg's medical reports.

The Board found that the defense failed to meet the burden of proof on apportionment because the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg were not substantial evidence and lacked sufficient medical reasoning. The Board credited the opinions of Dr. Miner and Dr. Van de Bittner that the first injury alone caused permanent and total disability before the second injury occurred.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ16771687 · 2025-10-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on August 13, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The Appeals Board denied removal because the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ20199681 · 2025-04-01 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that there is substantial medical evidence to support the WCA's decision. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the record was not properly developed and substantial medical evidence was unclear, requiring further review.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10814219 · 2022-04-07 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Labor Code section 59091 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. Section 5315 provides for a 60 day period for the Appeals Board to confirm, adopt, modify or set aside the findings, order, decision or award of a workers' compensation administrative law judge. (Lab. Code, § 5315.) Here, defendant filed its petition on February 12, 2021, and we issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration on January 3, 2022.

The Appeals Board's failure to act within statutory time limits was due to misplaced file, tolling the time to act on the petition for reconsideration; therefore, the petition was properly dismissed as untimely.

Official decision · page 1 →