Law Office of Kenneth Martinson

What they litigate

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

• Medical treatment / UR / IMR3
• AOE/COE1
• Substantial evidence / credibility1
• QME/AME process1

Where they appear

• San Francisco 8
• Santa Rosa 3
• 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.

• 8 for the defense
• 4 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 11 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.

• ADJ11150106 · 2025-07-15 · San Francisco District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, in a report dated September 11, 2023, orthopedic PQME, Dr. D'Amico, indicated that with respect to applicant's alleged neurological issues, he could not provide a specific diagnosis. (Defense Exhibit A, p. 23.) As such, he recommended a "repeat EMG/nerve velocity study of both upper and lower extremities" as well as a "neurologic consultation." (Id. at p. 24.) Thereafter, a timely petition requesting additional panels in various specialties, including neurology, was submitted by applicant on August 23, 2024.

  Dr. D'Amico could not provide a specific diagnosis for neurological issues and recommended further studies; good cause found for additional neurology panel.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9840500 · 2024-05-10 · Anaheim District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13Dr. Levy's Medical Reports Applicant is of the opinion that Dr. Levy's reports are not substantial evidence. The applicant believes that Dr. Levy's medical report denies due process to a non-English speaking injured worker. The Appeals Court determined that to constitute substantial evidence "... a medical opinion must 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 history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) A medical report is not substantial evidence unless it offers the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions. (Dr. does not state that 50 percent apportionment would be reasonable partially due to the normal progress of the preexisting injury). (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 33 Cal. Comp. Cases 647) Dr. Levy was the PQME for internal medicine. He authored eight (8) reports. He took a detailed history. He reviewed several medical reports, diagnostic tests and performed a comprehensive examination of the applicant throughout his medical reporting. Dr. Levy reviewed

  The medical reports of Dr. Levy and Dr. Mehta were found to be substantial evidence based on thorough examinations, detailed histories, and well-reasoned opinions.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ10586384 · 2023-10-09 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4There were QME's in four specialties in this matter, but the Petition for Reconsideration discusses only Dr. Chitnis, who served as QME in physical medicine and rehabilitation. (8/23/2023 MOH, p. 4, lines 46-47.) An issue for trial was "Whether the December 1, 2020 report of QME Nicole Chitnis, M.D., is rendered not substantial medical evidence due to applicant's allegation of inaccurate interpreting and use of multiple interpreters." (8/23/2023 MOH, p. 3, lines 18-21.) An additional issue involved whether a replacement internal QME panel was required. (8/23/2023 MOH, p. 3, lines 23-29.)

  The WCJ found the applicant's testimony not credible and found the QME report by Dr. Chitnis to be substantial medical evidence despite interpreting issues and alleged failure to review records.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11355769 · 2023-09-06 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4For whatever reason, this resulted in five additional reports, and a deposition which was conducted in two parts, part one commencing on January 27, 2021, and part two being concluded on June 23, 2021. Dr. Newton was unequivocal that applicant had not suffered a cumulative injury. Thereafter, the case was resubmitted. The court found consistent with the reporting of Dr. Newton that the applicant had not suffered a cumulative trauma, and as the court had previously found that the applicant had not suffered a specific injury, the court concluded that the applicant had not suffered any industrial injury as a result of his employment with R Ranch. The Petition for Reconsideration under current consideration followed.

  The court found consistent with the AME Dr. Newton's reports that the applicant did not suffer a cumulative trauma or specific industrial injury, thus no industrial injury was found.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12419865 · 2022-05-17 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4I am further persuaded that prior to defendant's filing of the Declaration of Readiness that culminated in today's trial, applicant made efforts including requesting the AME to address the need for additional specialties, requesting a panel, filing a Declaration of Readiness on the issue of additional panels, and reaching out to defendants via email regarding additional panels as well as objecting to defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed and raising the issue of additional panels on the Pre-trial Conference Statement. Accordingly, pursuant to the McDuffie case previously cited, I find that the request requires further development in the form of Panel QMEs in the additional specialties of internal medicine gastroenterology and psychology, as stated by the Agreed Medical Examiner, Dr. Moses Jacob, in his March 27, 2020 report. I will separately issue an order for the issuance of additional panels in those specialties. I therefore order that the matter go off calendar for further development of the record accordingly. DISPOSITION: The matter is ORDERED OFF CALENDAR for further development of the record. (Id. at 7:12.)

  The WCJ's order for additional panels was interlocutory and not a final order subject to reconsideration; the AME report supported the need for additional panels in specialties outside chiropractic medicine; defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13493291 · 2026-05-11 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. 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 WCAB found the record was not properly developed and granted reconsideration to allow further study and a just decision.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ12669513 · 2025-07-22 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

  Determinative passage · p.4Cal.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, as the petition appears to be frivolous and to have little merit, it is clear that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will not 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.

  Petition for removal was withdrawn by applicant; even if not, it was frivolous and did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10421975 · 2024-03-28 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the January 19, 2024 Findings and Award, Orders wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained admitted industrial injury to the low back while employed as a laborer on October 29, 2014 causing 27% permanent disability. The WCJ further found that the issue of causation, permanent disability, apportionment, and future medical care for the bilateral hips are deferred pending further development of the record; that there is good cause to order a panel of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QME) in the specialty of psychology; that the issue of applicant's right to an internal medicine QME panel is deferred pending the psychology QME evaluation; and that applicant was not denied due process by proceeding with Trial. Applicant also filed supplemental pleading on March 18, 2024 which we accept pursuant to our authority. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.)

  The Appeals Board found that the record was incomplete and inconsistent, and that the WCJ's decision did not adequately address all issues, warranting reconsideration and further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ5709650 · 2023-09-15 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on August 4, 2023, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16688665 · 2023-06-09 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2(1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 475.) The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton, supra, at pp. 475§ 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) Here, the only record provided is the WCJ's note "Dismissal of Republic Indemnity" in the minutes of hearing from the March 22. 2023 status conference. Because there is no record of testimony or evidence documenting the basis of the WCJ's Order, there is no evidence upon which we can base a decision. A record supporting any finding must still be established and petitioner

  The WCJ dismissed Republic Indemnity without a record of testimony or evidence documenting the basis for the order, depriving parties of due process and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The Appeals Board found no evidence upon which to base a decision and ordered a hearing to allow both parties to present evidence.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10838975 · 2022-07-20 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal filed on July 1, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12061993 · 2022-02-15 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of a ruling by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) sustaining an objection at applicant's deposition on October 11, 2021. Defendant contends that they are entitled to compel applicant to answer questions concerning any social security numbers used for work purposes.

  The WCJ sustained an objection based on applicant's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and the record did not include a discovery order subject to removal, making the defendant's petition premature and the applicant's petitions untimely and premature.

  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.

• Law Office of Kenneth Martinson
• LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH MARTINSON
• LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH D. MARTINSON
• LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH MARTINSON
• KENNETH MARTINSON LAW FIRM
• KENNETH D. MARTINSON, ESQ.
• KENNETH MARTINSON, ESQ.
• Kenneth Martinson

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.