California WCABLaw firm

Gearheart & Sonnicksen

Gearheart & Sonnicksen is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at Oakland. The firm it meets most often is Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (2).

Decisions: 11
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 10 of 10 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 11

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
5 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ10809542 · 2025-04-01 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, since "date of injury" was specifically placed at issue at trial (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of December 17, 2024 trial at p. 2) and the WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that "the date of injury is August 2, 2017...." (Opinion on Decision at p. 8), we will amend the WCJ's decision to include an express finding that the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is August 2, 2017. We will otherwise affirm the WCJ's decision for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, which we adopt, incorporate and quote below.
The date of injury was found to be August 2, 2017, based on the finding that compensable temporary disability began on that date and the condition became permanent and stationary later, supported by substantial evidence including medical opinions and applicant's testimony.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ14443327 · 2025-03-24 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Ace American Insurance adjusted by Gallagher Bassett Services (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on December 13, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a mechanic during the period ending June 9, 2021, sustained industrial injury to bilateral knees. The WCJ found that applicant's injuries resulted in a period of temporary total disability commencing January 10, 2023 through the present and continuing.
The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence supporting the cumulative injury claim may require further development and review, and granted reconsideration to allow full consideration of the entire record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13685275 · 2023-12-15 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Amended Findings, Award and Order of Fact of September 25, 2023, wherein, as relevant to the instant Petition, it was found that while employed as a line worker during a cumulative period ending August 21, 2020, applicant sustained industrial injury to her wrists, hands and neck causing temporary disability from December 1, 2022 to the present and continuing.
Dr. Renbaum's medical opinion that applicant was not permanent and stationary and had not recovered sufficiently to return to work supported the WCJ's finding of temporary disability from December 1, 2022 to present.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15225348 · 2023-12-12 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we agree that the opinions of panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) Rommel Hindocha is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion "must be predicated on reasonable medical probability." (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and
The WCJ properly relied on Dr. Hindocha's Almaraz/Guzman rating as substantial medical evidence because it was based on reasonable medical probability, supported by specific findings including significant limitations in 7/8 ADL categories, unsuccessful surgeries, and muscle atrophy, and was consistent with applicant's testimony and medical records.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9201223 · 2023-07-14 · Oakland District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded
Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on November 21, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained permanent partial disability of 71% as a result of his industrial injury.
The WCJ found 71% permanent partial disability, but applicant contended for permanent total disability; the Appeals Board rescinded the partial disability award and remanded for further consideration of settlement stipulations.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11666325 · 2021-10-05 · Oakland District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5In this case, EDD filed a lien on November 19, 2018 and a representative for EDD attended the hearing on May 15, 2019. We find that to be sufficient participation within the meaning of section 4903.2 and consistent with the cases cited above. We further note that section 4903.2 attorney fees are discretionary and not mandatory and we find the WCJ was within her discretion to deny them.
The WCAB found that EDD's participation in the hearing satisfied the participation requirement under Labor Code section 4903.2(b), thus barring attorney fees to applicant's attorney from EDD's recovery.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ20235103 · 2025-12-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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 substantial 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
The Appeals Board denied removal because 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 adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14443327 · 2025-09-23 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Ace American Insurance adjusted by Gallagher Bassett Services (defendant) filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 13, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a mechanic during the period ending June 9, 2021, sustained industrial injury to bilateral knees. The WCJ found that applicant's injuries resulted in a period of temporary total disability commencing January 10, 2023 through the present and continuing.
The WCAB rescinded the prior Findings and Award and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings based on the parties' stipulation and the need for a complete record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19072601 · 2025-05-12 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, it appears that the WCJ based his decision on a determination that an Order limiting the scope of the requested medical records was necessary, based upon "good cause", but failed to provide a basis for such decision, nor the evidence upon which he relied.
The WCJ's Order limiting the scope of medical records was not supported by a clear basis or evidence, failing to ensure a complete record and due process, thus removal was warranted to allow further proceedings.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ16827801 · 2024-07-24 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Order issued on April 30, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that defendant's subpoenas duces tecum served upon Kaiser/PMG, KFH/SCPMG, John Muir Medical Center and Brentwood Health Center be limited to medical records pertaining to applicant's musculoskeletal system.
The petition for removal was denied because the defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and other discovery avenues were available.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11137938 · 2022-10-20 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We first note that defendant's petition was verified and timely filed on April 7, 2021. Although we did not act upon the petition by June 7, 2021 as required by section 5909, it was through no fault of defendant. We believe that "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's inadequacies should fall on [a party]." (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Therefore, considering that defendant filed a timely petition and that the WCAB's failure to act was due to a clerical error by the district office, we find that our time to act on the petition is tolled.
The Appeals Board found the defendant's petition was timely filed and the Board's failure to act was due to a clerical error, thus tolling the time to act on the petition.
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.

GEARHEART & SONNICKSEN
Gearheart & Sonnicksen

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 →

Gearheart & Sonnicksen

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

5 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ10809542 · 2025-04-01 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, since "date of injury" was specifically placed at issue at trial (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of December 17, 2024 trial at p. 2) and the WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that "the date of injury is August 2, 2017...." (Opinion on Decision at p. 8), we will amend the WCJ's decision to include an express finding that the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is August 2, 2017. We will otherwise affirm the WCJ's decision for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, which we adopt, incorporate and quote below.

The date of injury was found to be August 2, 2017, based on the finding that compensable temporary disability began on that date and the condition became permanent and stationary later, supported by substantial evidence including medical opinions and applicant's testimony.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ14443327 · 2025-03-24 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Ace American Insurance adjusted by Gallagher Bassett Services (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on December 13, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a mechanic during the period ending June 9, 2021, sustained industrial injury to bilateral knees. The WCJ found that applicant's injuries resulted in a period of temporary total disability commencing January 10, 2023 through the present and continuing.

The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence supporting the cumulative injury claim may require further development and review, and granted reconsideration to allow full consideration of the entire record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13685275 · 2023-12-15 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Amended Findings, Award and Order of Fact of September 25, 2023, wherein, as relevant to the instant Petition, it was found that while employed as a line worker during a cumulative period ending August 21, 2020, applicant sustained industrial injury to her wrists, hands and neck causing temporary disability from December 1, 2022 to the present and continuing.

Dr. Renbaum's medical opinion that applicant was not permanent and stationary and had not recovered sufficiently to return to work supported the WCJ's finding of temporary disability from December 1, 2022 to present.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15225348 · 2023-12-12 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we agree that the opinions of panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) Rommel Hindocha is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion "must be predicated on reasonable medical probability." (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and

The WCJ properly relied on Dr. Hindocha's Almaraz/Guzman rating as substantial medical evidence because it was based on reasonable medical probability, supported by specific findings including significant limitations in 7/8 ADL categories, unsuccessful surgeries, and muscle atrophy, and was consistent with applicant's testimony and medical records.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9201223 · 2023-07-14 · Oakland District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded

Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on November 21, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained permanent partial disability of 71% as a result of his industrial injury.

The WCJ found 71% permanent partial disability, but applicant contended for permanent total disability; the Appeals Board rescinded the partial disability award and remanded for further consideration of settlement stipulations.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11666325 · 2021-10-05 · Oakland District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5In this case, EDD filed a lien on November 19, 2018 and a representative for EDD attended the hearing on May 15, 2019. We find that to be sufficient participation within the meaning of section 4903.2 and consistent with the cases cited above. We further note that section 4903.2 attorney fees are discretionary and not mandatory and we find the WCJ was within her discretion to deny them.

The WCAB found that EDD's participation in the hearing satisfied the participation requirement under Labor Code section 4903.2(b), thus barring attorney fees to applicant's attorney from EDD's recovery.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ20235103 · 2025-12-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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 substantial 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

The Appeals Board denied removal because 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 adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14443327 · 2025-09-23 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Ace American Insurance adjusted by Gallagher Bassett Services (defendant) filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 13, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a mechanic during the period ending June 9, 2021, sustained industrial injury to bilateral knees. The WCJ found that applicant's injuries resulted in a period of temporary total disability commencing January 10, 2023 through the present and continuing.

The WCAB rescinded the prior Findings and Award and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings based on the parties' stipulation and the need for a complete record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19072601 · 2025-05-12 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, it appears that the WCJ based his decision on a determination that an Order limiting the scope of the requested medical records was necessary, based upon "good cause", but failed to provide a basis for such decision, nor the evidence upon which he relied.

The WCJ's Order limiting the scope of medical records was not supported by a clear basis or evidence, failing to ensure a complete record and due process, thus removal was warranted to allow further proceedings.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ16827801 · 2024-07-24 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Order issued on April 30, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that defendant's subpoenas duces tecum served upon Kaiser/PMG, KFH/SCPMG, John Muir Medical Center and Brentwood Health Center be limited to medical records pertaining to applicant's musculoskeletal system.

The petition for removal was denied because the defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and other discovery avenues were available.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11137938 · 2022-10-20 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We first note that defendant's petition was verified and timely filed on April 7, 2021. Although we did not act upon the petition by June 7, 2021 as required by section 5909, it was through no fault of defendant. We believe that "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's inadequacies should fall on [a party]." (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Therefore, considering that defendant filed a timely petition and that the WCAB's failure to act was due to a clerical error by the district office, we find that our time to act on the petition is tolled.

The Appeals Board found the defendant's petition was timely filed and the Board's failure to act was due to a clerical error, thus tolling the time to act on the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →