Law Office of Jim T. Rademacher

What they litigate

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

• QME/AME process2
• AOE/COE1
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 8
• Santa Barbara 3
• Oxnard 2
• Anaheim 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.

• 7 for the defense
• 5 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 14 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.

• ADJ10222709 · 2026-01-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2FACTUAL BACKGROUND On November 24, 2020, the matter proceeded to trial in ADJ10222709. In that case, applicant claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE while employed by UCLA as a hospital lab technician, during the period May 1, 2014 through November 11, 2015, to her bilateral upper extremities, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral arms, neck, digestive system (stomach), fingers, both shoulders, elbows, internal, dental, nervous system, pulmonary and vision. The issues raised for determination were stated as follows: 1. Injury arising out of and in the course of employment. 2. Applicant attorney's motion to strike PQME Klassen is vigorously opposed by both defendants, including possible deposition unavailability. 3. Applicant's request for an additional panel in internal medicine is opposed by defendants. 4. Applicant's attorney objects to trial at this time and seeks further discovery.

  The WCJ failed to make findings on injury AOE/COE and improperly based denial solely on applicant's lack of credibility; the Appeals Board requires medical evidence for injury determination and remands for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11930717 · 2025-10-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued on February 19, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which denied applicant's request for an additional qualified medical evaluator (QME) in internal medicine.

  Applicant showed good cause for an additional QME panel in internal medicine because the current QME stated the claim of injury (diabetes) is outside their expertise, constituting substantial prejudice and irreparable harm if removal was not granted.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15951487 · 2025-08-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8From the evidence available, it appears PQME Dr. Wiseman did not complete the formal medical evaluation. PQME Dr. Wiseman did not prepare and serve the comprehensive medical- legal evaluation report on the injured worker, his attorney, the claims administrator or the employer, within thirty days of seeing the applicant. Instead, PQME Dr. Wiseman only served the report on the insurance carrier with a proof of service on The Hartford Syracuse for a Kentucky post office box, mailed date August 6, 2024, from Los Angeles. (Joint Exhibit 1, PQME Dr. Wiseman, PDF page 51.) Such service is on its face is defective. As stated by the WCJ in the Report:

  PQME Dr. Wiseman failed to serve his report on all parties within the statutory timeframe, constituting a violation of 8 CCR 36 and Labor Code requirements; this defect was not cured by later service by defense counsel. The integrity of the process and neutrality of the QME require concurrent service on all parties.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10390527 · 2022-03-22 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ issued the F&O on January 7, 2022, finding in pertinent part that "the statutes of limitations" were tolled until the applicant was advised of the statutory deadlines for filing a claim under Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 729 [39 Cal. Comp. Cases 768]. The opinion further determined that no claim form was ever provided to applicant by his employer. Accordingly, the WCJ determined that none of the three continuous trauma applications were barred by "any statute of limitations." (F&O, Joint Finding of Fact No. 1.)

  The WCJ's original decision did not clearly identify the specific statutes at issue or the date of injury under section 5412, which is necessary to determine if the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify these issues.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13111007 · 2025-10-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on September 10, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was issued without creating a record or explaining the need for further development, violating due process and causing irreparable harm, thus removal was proper.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12902485 · 2023-12-02 · Van Nuys 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 merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate 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 →
• ADJ13282912 · 2023-09-18 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  Petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal; reconsideration deemed adequate remedy; WCJ's analysis persuasive.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11177542 · 2023-06-19 · Santa Barbara 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 merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy if final adverse decision issued.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11148904 · 2023-01-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's decision includes a finding regarding a threshold issue. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

  The WCJ's decision included a threshold issue, making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but the petition only challenged an interlocutory finding. The Board applied the removal standard and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11237884 · 2022-12-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that the parties entered into a settlement, and an Order Approving Compromise & Release was issued by a WCJ on May 21, 2021, before the Grant for Study issued. The parties are reminded that the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.)

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the parties settled and an Order Approving Compromise & Release was issued before the petition was granted, and the District Office is precluded from acting on a case pending reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10485421 · 2022-12-21 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 petition was denied because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13359005 · 2021-02-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The issue that we face on removal is that there is an insufficient record to evaluate applicant's Petition or the WCJ's Order Denying Motion to Quash Deposition. There is no record of the issues presented to the WCJ, the arguments the parties made to the WCJ, any stipulations or admissions made by the parties, and/or any evidence that may have been considered. For example, a crucial piece of evidence that is missing is the December 4, 2020 Notice of Deposition. Without the Notice of Deposition, we are unable to consider whether the deposition notice complied with the applicable sections of the Code of Civil Procedure. Likewise, the exhibits that were attached to the Second Motion to Quash Deposition, while potentially relevant, were not offered as evidence with the first Motion to Quash Deposition. Thus, there is no evidence for us to consider. Upon return to the trial level, we recommend that the parties and the WCJ create a proper record.

  The WCJ's order was rescinded due to insufficient record to evaluate the motion and failure to comply with procedural requirements, warranting removal and further proceedings.

  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.

• LAW OFFICES OF JIM T. RADEMACHER
• Law Office of Jim T. Rademacher
• LAW OFFICES OF JIM RADEMACHER
• JIM RADEMACHER 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.