California WCABLaw firm

Law Office of Ron Nolan

Law Office of Ron Nolan is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Apportionment (2), AOE/COE (1) and Death benefits (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Riverside. The firm it meets most often is Bradford & Barthel (3).

Decisions: 11
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 9
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 9 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

Van Nuys 9
Riverside 2

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 defense
4 for the applicant
2 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.

ADJ10173387 · 2025-09-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3The second finding of fact, that applicant was not injured by reason of any serious and willful misconduct of the employer defendant, Recess Holdings/First Group, is based on the vehicle inspection report admitted without objection as Defendant's Exhibit II, and applicant's testimony describing that report and her inspection and use of the vehicle that she was driving on the morning of her awarded work injury of August 30, 2015. According to the report, although there was an electrical short in the vehicle the previous day, the mechanic had said the vehicle was "OK TO DRIVE." Applicant and her employer were both equally justified in relying upon this representation in the report in assuming that the vehicle was safe to operate. This assumption proved
The employer was justified in relying on a mechanic's inspection report that the vehicle was safe to drive, and there was no evidence of willful misconduct by a supervisory person with knowledge of the risk. Applicant did not meet the burden to show serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11369088 · 2025-03-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Here, based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 377-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)
The Appeals Board found the medical record on apportionment was not properly developed and granted reconsideration for further development.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ14881837 · 2024-06-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9DISCUSSION We turn first to defendant's contention that WCJ erroneously found that defendant did not meet its burden of proof as to apportionment. In Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.), the Appeals Board held that (1) Labor Code section 4663 requires the reporting physician to make an apportionment determination; (2) apportionment to other factors allows apportionment to causation, including pathology, prior conditions, and retroactive work restrictions; (3) applicant holds the initial burden to prove industrial injury and also has the added burden of establishing the approximate percentage of permanent disability directly related to the industrial injury; (4) defendant has the burden of establishing the approximate permanent disability caused by other factors; and (5) a medical report addressing apportionment may not be relied upon unless it constitutes substantial evidence.
The WCAB found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof on apportionment because the QME's opinion on apportionment was not framed in terms of reasonable medical probability and lacked adequate explanation, thus no apportionment to non-industrial factors was supported.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ14750024 · 2023-11-21 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order Reinstating Joint Findings and Order 7/13/2023 (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 18, 2023, wherein the WCJ re-issued the Findings that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) as claimed in case number ADJ14750024 and that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE as claimed in case number ADJ15318605.
Dr. Scheel's opinions were not based on an adequate examination and accurate history because she did not provide a supplemental report after re-evaluation, so her opinions did not constitute substantial evidence. The WCJ found applicant's testimony not credible due to inconsistencies and prior undisclosed injuries. The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow further proceedings and re-evaluation by Dr. Scheel with a complete record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9537314 · 2023-10-27 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3On 8/23/2023 the undersigned issued a Supplemental Findings and Award in favor of Petitioners awarding a 25% penalty under sec. 5814 for unreasonable failure to pay interest on a final award. The undersigned concluded that there was no excuse or explanation why such a benefit should have been delayed for nearly 1 years.
The Defendant paid the award but delayed payment of interest for nearly 1.5 years without excuse, justifying a 25% penalty under section 5814.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ13890820 · 2023-10-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration and removal of the May 10, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant was not subject to discrimination in violation of Labor Code1 section 132a and denied applicant's petition for a violation of section 132a.
The Appeals Board found that the Appeals Board's failure to act on the petition within 60 days was an error and granted reconsideration to allow further review of the discrimination claim under Labor Code section 132a.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10549257 · 2021-05-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Accordingly, there is substantial, uncontroverted evidence in the record establishing that applicant was wholly dependent on decedent on decedent's July 22, 2011 date of injury. It is therefore our decision after reconsideration to rescind the WCJ's decision, and issue new findings of fact that applicant was wholly dependent for support on decedent on the date of injury, and a new award consistent with section 4702, subdivision (a)(3).
Applicant was found to be wholly dependent on decedent at the time of injury based on uncontroverted evidence and testimony, despite prior receipt of Pell grant money, which was not considered to affect dependency at the time of injury.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10607341 · 2025-04-03 · 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 denied the petition for removal because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ957708 · 2024-03-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and Disqualification 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 for Removal and Disqualification.
The petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm for removal and did not provide sufficient verified facts for disqualification under the legal standards.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14750024 · 2024-02-02 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.23] (a petition seeking review of an Appeals Board order which remands a matter to the WCJ for further proceedings is ordinarily premature).) Thus, our prior Order was not a final decision, and therefore we will evaluate the issues raised by the Petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) 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).) Having again reviewed the entire record, including our prior Opinion, we see no evidence that defendant is subject to substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Nor is there any indication that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the WCJ's final decision is adverse to defendant.
The prior Appeals Board order remanding for further proceedings was not a final order; removal is an extraordinary remedy and defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate after a final decision.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ16556325 · 2023-09-06 · Van Nuys 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner 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 →

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 RON NOLAN
LAW OFFICES OF RON NOLAN
Law Office of Ron Nolan
RON NOLAN, ESQ.

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 →

Law Office of Ron Nolan

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the defense

4 for the applicant

2 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.

ADJ10173387 · 2025-09-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3The second finding of fact, that applicant was not injured by reason of any serious and willful misconduct of the employer defendant, Recess Holdings/First Group, is based on the vehicle inspection report admitted without objection as Defendant's Exhibit II, and applicant's testimony describing that report and her inspection and use of the vehicle that she was driving on the morning of her awarded work injury of August 30, 2015. According to the report, although there was an electrical short in the vehicle the previous day, the mechanic had said the vehicle was "OK TO DRIVE." Applicant and her employer were both equally justified in relying upon this representation in the report in assuming that the vehicle was safe to operate. This assumption proved

The employer was justified in relying on a mechanic's inspection report that the vehicle was safe to drive, and there was no evidence of willful misconduct by a supervisory person with knowledge of the risk. Applicant did not meet the burden to show serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11369088 · 2025-03-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded

Determinative passage · p.6Here, based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 377-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)

The Appeals Board found the medical record on apportionment was not properly developed and granted reconsideration for further development.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ14881837 · 2024-06-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9DISCUSSION We turn first to defendant's contention that WCJ erroneously found that defendant did not meet its burden of proof as to apportionment. In Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.), the Appeals Board held that (1) Labor Code section 4663 requires the reporting physician to make an apportionment determination; (2) apportionment to other factors allows apportionment to causation, including pathology, prior conditions, and retroactive work restrictions; (3) applicant holds the initial burden to prove industrial injury and also has the added burden of establishing the approximate percentage of permanent disability directly related to the industrial injury; (4) defendant has the burden of establishing the approximate permanent disability caused by other factors; and (5) a medical report addressing apportionment may not be relied upon unless it constitutes substantial evidence.

The WCAB found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof on apportionment because the QME's opinion on apportionment was not framed in terms of reasonable medical probability and lacked adequate explanation, thus no apportionment to non-industrial factors was supported.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ14750024 · 2023-11-21 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order Reinstating Joint Findings and Order 7/13/2023 (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 18, 2023, wherein the WCJ re-issued the Findings that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) as claimed in case number ADJ14750024 and that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE as claimed in case number ADJ15318605.

Dr. Scheel's opinions were not based on an adequate examination and accurate history because she did not provide a supplemental report after re-evaluation, so her opinions did not constitute substantial evidence. The WCJ found applicant's testimony not credible due to inconsistencies and prior undisclosed injuries. The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow further proceedings and re-evaluation by Dr. Scheel with a complete record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9537314 · 2023-10-27 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3On 8/23/2023 the undersigned issued a Supplemental Findings and Award in favor of Petitioners awarding a 25% penalty under sec. 5814 for unreasonable failure to pay interest on a final award. The undersigned concluded that there was no excuse or explanation why such a benefit should have been delayed for nearly 1 years.

The Defendant paid the award but delayed payment of interest for nearly 1.5 years without excuse, justifying a 25% penalty under section 5814.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ13890820 · 2023-10-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration and removal of the May 10, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant was not subject to discrimination in violation of Labor Code1 section 132a and denied applicant's petition for a violation of section 132a.

The Appeals Board found that the Appeals Board's failure to act on the petition within 60 days was an error and granted reconsideration to allow further review of the discrimination claim under Labor Code section 132a.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10549257 · 2021-05-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Accordingly, there is substantial, uncontroverted evidence in the record establishing that applicant was wholly dependent on decedent on decedent's July 22, 2011 date of injury. It is therefore our decision after reconsideration to rescind the WCJ's decision, and issue new findings of fact that applicant was wholly dependent for support on decedent on the date of injury, and a new award consistent with section 4702, subdivision (a)(3).

Applicant was found to be wholly dependent on decedent at the time of injury based on uncontroverted evidence and testimony, despite prior receipt of Pell grant money, which was not considered to affect dependency at the time of injury.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10607341 · 2025-04-03 · 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 denied the petition for removal because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ957708 · 2024-03-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and Disqualification 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 for Removal and Disqualification.

The petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm for removal and did not provide sufficient verified facts for disqualification under the legal standards.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14750024 · 2024-02-02 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.23] (a petition seeking review of an Appeals Board order which remands a matter to the WCJ for further proceedings is ordinarily premature).) Thus, our prior Order was not a final decision, and therefore we will evaluate the issues raised by the Petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) 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).) Having again reviewed the entire record, including our prior Opinion, we see no evidence that defendant is subject to substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Nor is there any indication that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the WCJ's final decision is adverse to defendant.

The prior Appeals Board order remanding for further proceedings was not a final order; removal is an extraordinary remedy and defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate after a final decision.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ16556325 · 2023-09-06 · Van Nuys 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner 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 →