Law Offices of Nadeem Makada

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• San Francisco 26
• Oakland 2
• Stockton 2
• Lodi 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.

• 18 for the defense
• 10 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 29 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.

• ADJ13042541 · 2026-05-18 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent total disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 13, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine, cervical spine, thoracic spine, right ankle, right hip, right foot, right toes, complex regional pain syndrome, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists and right leg resulting in permanent total disability.

  The WCJ found permanent total disability based on substantial evidence including the QME's opinion that disabilities should be added rather than combined. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the record due to incomplete development and statutory time constraints.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8192069 · 2025-12-24 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Here, the August 5, 2025 UR determination certified the requested home healthcare treatment as medically necessary. Because the UR decision was valid and timely, the determination is binding on the employer and the employer must provide the treatment forthwith to cure or relieve the employee from the effects of the industrial injury. (Lab. Code, § 4600, subd. (a).)

  A valid, timely UR decision certifying medical necessity is binding on the employer; the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to set aside such a certification except for timeliness issues.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ11073230 · 2025-03-24 · Lodi District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Bluewater Industries, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the December 13, 2024 Findings of Fact and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) found that applicant, while employed as an asbestos removal worker on September 25, 2017, sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine resulting in permanent and total disability.

  The WCA found applicant's disability to be permanent and total based on vocational expert Simon's opinion that applicant was precluded from return to the open labor market, despite defense expert Westman's contrary opinion. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review this finding.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19352869 · 2024-12-30 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 4, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel number 7705175 is valid.

  The WCJ's finding that the QME panel number 7705175 is valid was not an abuse of discretion; service of the delay notice on applicant rather than her attorney was proper and did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm; reconsideration was an adequate remedy; therefore, removal was denied and reconsideration petition was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12878263 · 2024-12-23 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found that applicant failed to prove industrial causation of her injury because the WCJ found that applicant's history of injury was not credible.

  The WCJ's finding of lack of industrial causation was based on applicant's history being not credible, but the WCAB found the credibility findings inconsistent and the QME's opinion inadequate due to lack of medical records, thus remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14729505 · 2024-06-07 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant, a 39-year-old certified nurse assistant, suffered an accepted injury to her thoracic spine while helping pull a patient into bed. The primary issue at trial was permanent disability. At trial, applicant relied on reports from the primary treating physician, Gary Martinovsky, M.D. Defendant relied on reports from the QME, Edward Jennings, D.C. The parties stipulated to the PPD ratings of Dr. Martinovsky's report(s) (32%) and Dr. Jennings report(s) (8%).

  The WCJ found the primary treating physician's (Dr. Martinovsky) opinion to be substantial evidence and more persuasive than the QME's (Dr. Jennings) opinion, awarding 32% PPD based on credible testimony and medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11349951 · 2024-03-19 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact & Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 22, 2021. By the F&A, the WCJ found in relevant part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her head while employed by the defendant on March 25, 2018 as a janitor. She further found that applicant's primary treating physician is Tariq Mirza, M.D., and that the injury caused the need for further medical treatment.

  Applicant struck her head at work and defendant accepted liability for the head injury, thus applicant met burden to show injury AOE/COE. Defendant's challenge to injury AOE/COE was rejected due to lack of specific evidence against applicant's credibility.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7065881 · 2023-10-11 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3We should, in the absence of statutory direction and to avoid an injustice, prevent the barring of an applicant's claim against the Fund before it arises. Therefore, we hold that where, prior to the expiration of five years from the date of injury, an applicant does not know and could not reasonably be deemed to know that there will be substantial likelihood he will become entitled to subsequent injuries benefits, his application against the Fund will not be barred -- even if he has applied for normal benefits against his employer - - if he files a proceeding against the Fund within a reasonable time after he learns from the board's findings on the issue of permanent disability that the Fund has probable liability. (Talcott, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 65.)

  Applicant's SIBTF claim was filed more than five years after the subsequent injury date, exceeding the statutory limitation period under Talcott and Adams, making the claim untimely.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14628369 · 2022-04-25 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued on February 4, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that on April 20, 2021 applicant sustained injuries to various body parts arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) as a "Driving Logistics Associate/Driver" with defendant.

  The WCAB found that applicant's injury occurred within the course of employment under the personal comfort doctrine, based on credible testimony and circumstances of the parking spot swap and motor vehicle collision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11073181 · 2022-03-30 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, defendant is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision regarding whether applicant is entitled to treatment outside of the medical provider network (MPN). (See Babbitt v. Ow Jing (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 70, 78-79 (Appeals Board en banc) [applicant's substantive right to medical treatment is unchanged by the MPN statutes which "simply allow another method for providing that medical treatment"].) Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)

  The Appeals Board applied the removal standard to the interlocutory issue of entitlement to treatment outside the MPN and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12525621 · 2022-01-14 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.5The last report in evidence, from Dr. Graves, is dated May 19, 2021, and it states that applicant would remain temporarily totally disabled until July 2, 2021, (i.e. 45 days after the May 19, 2021 treatment report) and that, "[H]is work status will be updated as his condition improves." (App. Exh. 1, May 19, 2021, [EAMS p. 12.) Although, as discussed above, Dr. Graves' report is substantial evidence that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period through July 2, 2021, it is not evidence that he was temporarily totally disabled thereafter. It is important to note that we are not addressing the issue of whether applicant is or is not entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits after July 2, 2021. We are simply saying that in order for applicant to be entitled to those benefits, there must be timely medical reports (per AD Rule 9785(f)(8), noted above) addressing his disability status. Under the circumstances of this matter it is appropriate that the issue of applicant's entitlement to temporary disability indemnity benefits after July 2, 2021, is deferred.

  Dr. Graves' reports supported temporary total disability through July 2, 2021, but no timely medical reports supported disability after that date, so the issue of disability after July 2, 2021 was deferred.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10845616 · 2021-11-08 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.15Labor Code section 3208.3 governs the compensability of claims of psychiatric injury. Under that statute, a compensable psychiatric injury occurs where (1) the alleged psychiatric injury involves actual events of employment; (2) the actual employment events were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury; and (3) if the actual employment events were personnel actions which were a substantial cause of the injury, such personnel actions were unlawful, discriminatory or not taken in good faith. (Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 241, 242, (Appeals board en banc decision)) The Legislature's intent in enacting Labor Code section 3208.3 was "to establish a new and higher threshold of compensability for psychiatric injury..." (Labor Code section 3208.3(c).) "In order to establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee shall demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of that psychiatric injury." (Labor Code section 3208.3(b) (1)) "Predominant as to all causes" means that `the work related cause has greater than a 50 percent share of the entire set of causal factors.' (Dept. of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. II, I (Garcia) (1999) 76 Ca1. App. 4th 810, 816 [64 Ca1.Comp.Cases 1356, 1360];

  The WCJ and WCAB found the applicant's psychiatric injury arose out of and in the course of employment and was not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(h) because the personnel actions were not lawful, nondiscriminatory, or taken in good faith.

  Official decision · page 15 →

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 NADEEM MAKADA
• Law Offices of Nadeem Makada
• LAW OFFICE OF NADEEM MAKADA
• The Law Office of Nadeem H. Makada
• LAW OFFICE OF NADEEM H. MAKADA
• Offices of Nadeem Makada

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.