California WCABLaw firm

Kelly, Duarte, Urstoeger & Ruble, LLP

Kelly, Duarte, Urstoeger & Ruble, LLP is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Death benefits (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Lodi, then Stockton. The firm it meets most often is Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (2).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 2

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

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

Lodi 7
Stockton 3

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.

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

Counted over 9 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

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

ADJ8627591 · 2025-11-07 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2FACTS Decedent applicant died on May 22, 2021, due to heart failure with cardiomyopathy. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, Death Certificate, June 10, 2021.) Decedent had an underlying claim of cumulative injury to multiple body parts, including his feet and hypertension, during an injurious exposure period ending on May 3, 2012. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), June 4, 2025, p. 2, lines 4-8.) Qualified medical evaluator (QME) James Schmitz, M.D., evaluated applicant's death and authored two reports in evidence. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2.) Dr. Schmitz took a history of injury, in pertinent part, as follows:
The WCAB found that the decedent's death was industrially related based on medical evidence from QME Dr. Schmitz and that the claim was timely filed under Labor Code section 5412, as the date of injury for cumulative injury claims is the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related. Defendant failed to prove the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10813808 · 2022-12-27 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Here, the WCJ found that applicant had dual employment with DTL Logistics, Inc. Texas and DTL Logistics, Inc., California. We agree. As set forth in Kowalski:
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15539450 · 2022-08-09 · Stockton District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The WCJ issued the F&O on March 5, 2022, finding "Panel no. 7464239 is not valid." (Findings of Fact No. 3.) Defendant filed a Petition for Removal on April 4, 2022, averring "the
The WCJ and WCAB found defendant's July 7, 2021 objection letter invalid because it did not include the mandatory QME panel request form required by sections 4061(c) and 4062(a), invalidating the subsequent QME panel request and panel no. 7464239.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ2298079 · 2022-06-10 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.5Dr. Lang's reporting was equivocal as to whether applicant's condition was permanent and stationary at the time of his evaluation. The other medical reporting in evidence does not address whether applicant was considered temporarily disabled or permanent and stationary subsequent to Dr. Lang's 2017 evaluation. Although Dr. Newton appeared to agree with Dr. Lang's opinion regarding whether applicant's condition was permanent and stationary, his reporting in evidence is unspecific as to when this status was reached.
The medical record was insufficient to determine if applicant was temporarily disabled from October 13, 2017 to present; the AME Dr. Lang's reports were equivocal and the record needed further development.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ15136566 · 2026-01-30 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.
The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ decision, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ2875706 · 2025-10-29 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon various allegations that the WCJ is generally biased. Applicant's petition is not verified.
The petition was dismissed because it was not verified by affidavit or declaration and failed to state grounds for disqualification as required by law and WCAB rules.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17388371 · 2025-01-24 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3The petition in this matter was filed on November 21, 2024. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's decision and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.
The petition was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision and beyond any extension allowed, making it untimely and depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider it.
Official decision · page 3 →

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.

KELLY, DUARTE, URSTOEGER & RUBLE, LLP
KELLY, DUARTE, URSTOEGER & RUBLE
LAW OFFICES OF DUARTE, URSTOEGER & RUBLE LLP
Kelly, Duarte, Urstoeger & Ruble, LLP
DUARTE, URSTOEGER & RUBLE, LLP
KELLY DUARTE URSTOEGER & RUBLE
DUARTE, URSTOEGER & RUBLE

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 →

Kelly, Duarte, Urstoeger & Ruble, LLP

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

3 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Decisions

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

ADJ8627591 · 2025-11-07 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2FACTS Decedent applicant died on May 22, 2021, due to heart failure with cardiomyopathy. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, Death Certificate, June 10, 2021.) Decedent had an underlying claim of cumulative injury to multiple body parts, including his feet and hypertension, during an injurious exposure period ending on May 3, 2012. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), June 4, 2025, p. 2, lines 4-8.) Qualified medical evaluator (QME) James Schmitz, M.D., evaluated applicant's death and authored two reports in evidence. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2.) Dr. Schmitz took a history of injury, in pertinent part, as follows:

The WCAB found that the decedent's death was industrially related based on medical evidence from QME Dr. Schmitz and that the claim was timely filed under Labor Code section 5412, as the date of injury for cumulative injury claims is the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related. Defendant failed to prove the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10813808 · 2022-12-27 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Here, the WCJ found that applicant had dual employment with DTL Logistics, Inc. Texas and DTL Logistics, Inc., California. We agree. As set forth in Kowalski:

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15539450 · 2022-08-09 · Stockton District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2The WCJ issued the F&O on March 5, 2022, finding "Panel no. 7464239 is not valid." (Findings of Fact No. 3.) Defendant filed a Petition for Removal on April 4, 2022, averring "the

The WCJ and WCAB found defendant's July 7, 2021 objection letter invalid because it did not include the mandatory QME panel request form required by sections 4061(c) and 4062(a), invalidating the subsequent QME panel request and panel no. 7464239.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ2298079 · 2022-06-10 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.5Dr. Lang's reporting was equivocal as to whether applicant's condition was permanent and stationary at the time of his evaluation. The other medical reporting in evidence does not address whether applicant was considered temporarily disabled or permanent and stationary subsequent to Dr. Lang's 2017 evaluation. Although Dr. Newton appeared to agree with Dr. Lang's opinion regarding whether applicant's condition was permanent and stationary, his reporting in evidence is unspecific as to when this status was reached.

The medical record was insufficient to determine if applicant was temporarily disabled from October 13, 2017 to present; the AME Dr. Lang's reports were equivocal and the record needed further development.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ15136566 · 2026-01-30 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ decision, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ2875706 · 2025-10-29 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon various allegations that the WCJ is generally biased. Applicant's petition is not verified.

The petition was dismissed because it was not verified by affidavit or declaration and failed to state grounds for disqualification as required by law and WCAB rules.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17388371 · 2025-01-24 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3The petition in this matter was filed on November 21, 2024. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's decision and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.

The petition was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision and beyond any extension allowed, making it untimely and depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider it.

Official decision · page 3 →

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.

KELLY, DUARTE, URSTOEGER & RUBLE, LLP

KELLY, DUARTE, URSTOEGER & RUBLE

LAW OFFICES OF DUARTE, URSTOEGER & RUBLE LLP

Kelly, Duarte, Urstoeger & Ruble, LLP

DUARTE, URSTOEGER & RUBLE, LLP

KELLY DUARTE URSTOEGER & RUBLE

DUARTE, URSTOEGER & RUBLE