California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of J. Felix McNulty

Law Offices of J. Felix McNulty is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to QME/AME process (2), AOE/COE (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Santa Ana, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen (1).

Decisions: 6
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 4 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

2 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America2
Arch Insurance Company1
California Truckers Safety Association1
Employers Preferred Insurance Company1
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company1
LWP Claims Solutions, INC.1
Security National Insurance Company1
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company1

Where they appear

Santa Ana 5
Van Nuys 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.

4 for the applicant
2 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ16313390 · 2026-07-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3It appears that the actual issue in these matters is whether defendant may replace Dr. Krishnareddy due to his alleged unavailability. Rather than try that issue on the merits, the WCJ bifurcated the sub-issue of whether applicant may take the QME’s deposition on the issue of his availability.
The WCJ bifurcated the issue of QME availability and denied applicant's request to depose the QME. The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant to warrant replacement of the QME and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order was non-final and removal was not warranted.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10620763 · 2024-04-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In summary, we are persuaded that a complete evidentiary record is necessary to the proper determination of the issue of applicant's election pursuant to section 5500.5. The WCJ's Order presently defers the issue of the election pending a determination of injury AOE/COE. However, because we believe a record must be created to address the issue of the election in the first instance, we will grant removal and affirm the Order, but amend it to reflect that the issue of applicant's election is deferred pending the creation of a full evidentiary record pursuant to Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473.
The WCJ's order deferring the election issue was affirmed but amended to require creation of a full evidentiary record before adjudication, ensuring proper evaluation of applicant's election rights under Labor Code section 5500.5.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ9103770 · 2022-04-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings of Fact of September 23, 2019, the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a driver/loader/unloader during the period July 14, 2008 to July 24, 2013, sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, left knee, and right ankle, and that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his right knee, elbows, left ankle, feet, head, skin, abdomen (hernia), cardiovascular system (hypertension), endocrine system (diabetes and obesity), gastrointestinal system (GERD/gastritis), sleep loss or psyche.
The WCJ's findings of industrial injury to cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, left knee, and right ankle were affirmed based on substantial evidence including Dr. Brown's medical opinions.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9298865 · 2021-10-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6We next address defendant's contention that applicant failed to mitigate his damages because he did not seek unemployment benefits he could have obtained from the EDD. In this regard, defendant cites no authority, and we are aware of none, for the proposition that applicant's duty to mitigate damages includes a duty to seek unemployment benefits for which defendant may subsequently claim a liability credit. To the contrary, the authorities of which we are aware suggest otherwise.
Defendant offered no legal authority to claim credit for unemployment benefits; applicant entitled to lost wages without deduction for benefits not received.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ8725567 · 2021-05-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5The parties cannot return to the orthopedic QME to address the issue of causation for applicant's stroke. We therefore agree with applicant that an additional QME panel in neurology is necessary to evaluate causation for her stroke. (See also McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906 [the Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues].)
The cause of applicant's stroke is a medical determination that must be evaluated by a medical expert, and the parties cannot return to the orthopedic QME for this issue; thus, good cause exists for an additional QME panel in neurology.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10309928 · 2022-01-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.4After having determined that the vocational rehabilitation report was improperly provided to AME Angerman according to Labor Code section 4062.3(c), the undersigned struck the reporting of Dr. Angerman under Labor Code section 4062.3(g) and ordered the parties to meet and confer as to the selection of a new AME or that a Regular Physician may be appointed by the Court. In lieu of this, applicant's counsel filed their Petition for Reconsideration.
The WCJ initially struck Dr. Angerman's report due to improper communication but reconsidered after reviewing the deposition transcript showing Dr. Angerman requested the vocational rehabilitation report, which was improperly provided but important for his review.
Official decision · page 4 →

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 J. FELIX MCNULTY
Law Offices of J. Felix McNulty
LAW OFFICE OF J. FELIX MCNULTY
LAW OFFICES OF FELIX MCNULTY

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 Offices of J. Felix McNulty

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

2 for the defense

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.

ADJ16313390 · 2026-07-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3It appears that the actual issue in these matters is whether defendant may replace Dr. Krishnareddy due to his alleged unavailability. Rather than try that issue on the merits, the WCJ bifurcated the sub-issue of whether applicant may take the QME’s deposition on the issue of his availability.

The WCJ bifurcated the issue of QME availability and denied applicant's request to depose the QME. The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant to warrant replacement of the QME and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order was non-final and removal was not warranted.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10620763 · 2024-04-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6In summary, we are persuaded that a complete evidentiary record is necessary to the proper determination of the issue of applicant's election pursuant to section 5500.5. The WCJ's Order presently defers the issue of the election pending a determination of injury AOE/COE. However, because we believe a record must be created to address the issue of the election in the first instance, we will grant removal and affirm the Order, but amend it to reflect that the issue of applicant's election is deferred pending the creation of a full evidentiary record pursuant to Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473.

The WCJ's order deferring the election issue was affirmed but amended to require creation of a full evidentiary record before adjudication, ensuring proper evaluation of applicant's election rights under Labor Code section 5500.5.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ9103770 · 2022-04-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings of Fact of September 23, 2019, the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a driver/loader/unloader during the period July 14, 2008 to July 24, 2013, sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, left knee, and right ankle, and that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his right knee, elbows, left ankle, feet, head, skin, abdomen (hernia), cardiovascular system (hypertension), endocrine system (diabetes and obesity), gastrointestinal system (GERD/gastritis), sleep loss or psyche.

The WCJ's findings of industrial injury to cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, left knee, and right ankle were affirmed based on substantial evidence including Dr. Brown's medical opinions.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9298865 · 2021-10-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6We next address defendant's contention that applicant failed to mitigate his damages because he did not seek unemployment benefits he could have obtained from the EDD. In this regard, defendant cites no authority, and we are aware of none, for the proposition that applicant's duty to mitigate damages includes a duty to seek unemployment benefits for which defendant may subsequently claim a liability credit. To the contrary, the authorities of which we are aware suggest otherwise.

Defendant offered no legal authority to claim credit for unemployment benefits; applicant entitled to lost wages without deduction for benefits not received.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ8725567 · 2021-05-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5The parties cannot return to the orthopedic QME to address the issue of causation for applicant's stroke. We therefore agree with applicant that an additional QME panel in neurology is necessary to evaluate causation for her stroke. (See also McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906 [the Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues].)

The cause of applicant's stroke is a medical determination that must be evaluated by a medical expert, and the parties cannot return to the orthopedic QME for this issue; thus, good cause exists for an additional QME panel in neurology.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10309928 · 2022-01-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

Determinative passage · p.4After having determined that the vocational rehabilitation report was improperly provided to AME Angerman according to Labor Code section 4062.3(c), the undersigned struck the reporting of Dr. Angerman under Labor Code section 4062.3(g) and ordered the parties to meet and confer as to the selection of a new AME or that a Regular Physician may be appointed by the Court. In lieu of this, applicant's counsel filed their Petition for Reconsideration.

The WCJ initially struck Dr. Angerman's report due to improper communication but reconsidered after reviewing the deposition transcript showing Dr. Angerman requested the vocational rehabilitation report, which was improperly provided but important for his review.

Official decision · page 4 →