California WCABLaw firm

Fensten & Gelber

Fensten & Gelber is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Sanctions under Labor Code §5813 (2) and Psyche AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles.

Decisions: 6
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 5 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

No firm on the other side appears often enough to name.

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

Los Angeles 6

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.

3 for the applicant
2 returned for more record
1 for the defense

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ10183569 · 2026-01-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the record fails to show how, if at all, the WCJ evaluated whether or not defendants retained control over applicant's work and how he "re-weighed" all the secondary factors...... We therefore conclude that the WCJ should develop the record on the issue of whether applicant was employed by defendants at the time of injury. Accordingly, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision. (Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, January 28, 2022, pp. 6-9.)
The Appeals Board found the record insufficient to show how the WCJ applied the Borello factors and remanded for further development of the record on employment status.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ14570796 · 2023-12-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the Arbitrator on October 10, 2023, wherein the Arbitrator found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and did not sustain an industrially related hernia.
No medical evidence addressed whether employment was a causative factor for the hernia; the Board found insufficient evidence to determine injury AOE/COE and ordered further development including QME evaluation.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10616914 · 2025-05-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The WCAB found the petition did not meet the high standard for removal and that reconsideration was the appropriate remedy, so the petition was denied.
Official decision · page 6 →

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.

FENSTEN AND GELBER
Fensten & Gelber
LAW OFFICE OF FENSTEN AND GELBER
LAW OFFICES OF FENSTEN & GELBER

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

1 for the defense

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ10183569 · 2026-01-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the record fails to show how, if at all, the WCJ evaluated whether or not defendants retained control over applicant's work and how he "re-weighed" all the secondary factors...... We therefore conclude that the WCJ should develop the record on the issue of whether applicant was employed by defendants at the time of injury. Accordingly, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision. (Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, January 28, 2022, pp. 6-9.)

The Appeals Board found the record insufficient to show how the WCJ applied the Borello factors and remanded for further development of the record on employment status.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ14570796 · 2023-12-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the Arbitrator on October 10, 2023, wherein the Arbitrator found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and did not sustain an industrially related hernia.

No medical evidence addressed whether employment was a causative factor for the hernia; the Board found insufficient evidence to determine injury AOE/COE and ordered further development including QME evaluation.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10616914 · 2025-05-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

The WCAB found the petition did not meet the high standard for removal and that reconsideration was the appropriate remedy, so the petition was denied.

Official decision · page 6 →