Lenahan, Slater, Pearse & Majernik

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Sacramento 10
• Redding 8
• Santa Rosa 5
• Lodi 4
• Stockton 3
• Oakland 2
• Fresno 1
• Salinas 1
• San Francisco 1
• San Jose 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.

• 13 for the defense
• 12 for the applicant
• 6 returned for more record

Counted over 31 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.

• ADJ19328573 · 2026-06-26 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13(Exhibit CC, Sean Robinson, M.D., March 4, 2025, PDF p. 64, emphasis added.) The statements provided do not explain how the identified factors caused applicant's

  The Appeals Board found that the medical opinion on apportionment by Dr. Sean Robinson was not substantial evidence due to lack of adequate explanation and reliance on speculation, thus rejecting apportionment and awarding permanent disability without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ19756417 · 2026-04-20 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.12Accordingly, we grant reconsideration and rescind the Findings of Fact and substitute a new Findings of Fact that finds that the claim of injury is not barred by section 3600(a)(9) and defers all other issues. We make no other substantive changes.

  The Appeals Board found that the claim of injury is not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) and deferred all other issues due to lack of substantial medical evidence and the need for further record development.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ14815013 · 2026-03-16 · Lodi District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Award of December 19, 2025, wherein it was found that while employed on March 22, 2021 as a fire engineer, applicant sustained industrial injury to the neck and right shoulder causing permanent disability of 4% after apportionment. Previously, on August 26, 2016, applicant received a stipulated Award of 28% permanent disability for an August 19, 2013 industrial injury to the neck and right shoulder in case ADJ9994609. In the instant case, it was found that applicant's overall permanent disability was 32%, but the WCJ apportioned to the prior award of permanent disability in ADJ9994609 pursuant to Labor Code section 4664 to arrive at 3% compensable permanent disability.1

  The WCAB found that the record on permanent disability and apportionment under Labor Code section 4664 was insufficiently developed, requiring further development and reanalysis, leading to granting reconsideration and returning the matter to trial level.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9170309 · 2025-11-03 · Santa Rosa District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 25, 2025 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant's injuries were not caused by the serious and willful misconduct of the employer and that applicant's injuries were not the result of the employer's violation of any statute or safety order.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found no evidence that the employer or its managing representative acted with serious and willful misconduct causing the injury, and no violation of safety orders was a proximate cause of the accident.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16975645 · 2024-12-16 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Applicant sustained injury in the form of presumptively compensable cancer. She lost time from work as a result of that injury. Specifically, she was totally disabled for the period October 31, 2022 through September 11, 2023. For this period, she received her full salary replacement pursuant to Labor Code § 4850. She was then returned to work on a part time basis, working 3 days a week and receiving 4850 benefits so that she received her full salary replacement: part from salary and part in 4850 benefits. Defendant ended this on October 27, 2023, at which point applicant had received 52 weeks of 4850 benefits - after which she received partial temporary disability benefits.

  The Appeals Board found that section 4850 benefits are payable on a daily basis for up to one year (365 days), not limited to 52 weeks, and that the employer cannot credit salary earned during part-time work against the 4850 benefits entitlement.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11296458 · 2024-11-04 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Given the disparity of the medical opinions in the record and questions regarding whether the medical opinions utilized the correct legal standard, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the record and decision. In the further proceedings, if the parties cannot agree to an agreed medical evaluator, the WCJ should consider appointing an independent medical evaluator (Lab. Code, § 5701.)

  The WCAB found the medical record insufficient and the medical opinions conflicting regarding the compensability of the left knee injury and the permanent disability rating, warranting further development and reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14244361 · 2024-09-16 · Sacramento District OfficeQME/AME processmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 3, 2024 Findings of Fact, Award, and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a firefighter during the period ending August 5, 2019, sustained industrial injury to her psyche. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that the reporting of Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Joseph R. Nevotti, Ph.D., did not constitute substantial medical evidence and that the deficiencies in the QME reporting could not be rehabilitated. Accordingly, the WCJ ordered Dr. Nevotti stricken as the QME and ordered the parties to consider the use of an Agreed Medical Evaluator or to obtain a new panel of QMEs.

  The WCJ found the QME's reporting was not substantial evidence and that the QME could not be rehabilitated due to unprofessional conduct and failure to apply correct apportionment law; the WCAB granted reconsideration and ordered a replacement panel of QMEs in psychology to resolve disputed issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14364236 · 2024-08-26 · Redding District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On June 10, 2024, the WCJ issued her Findings of Fact, determining that Dr. Sonu was not disqualified as the QME, and that the QME was not unavailable for cross-examination. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision noted the QME's detailed physical findings in the February 7, 2023 report, as well as the attestations of the QME that he had personally accomplished a physical examination of the applicant. (Opinion on Decision, p. 3.) The WCJ further noted that applicant did not promptly raise the issue of the adequacy of the examination, waiting more than one year to offer any objection to the evaluation, as set forth in his April 1, 2024 DOR. With respect to the availability of the QME for deposition, the WCJ noted that applicant had the burden of proving unavailability of the QME but had offered no evidence in support of that contention. (Id. at p. 4.)

  The WCJ found the QME's physical examination credible based on detailed findings and attestations, and applicant failed to prove unavailability for deposition; removal standard not met.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11348013 · 2024-08-22 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based upon Applicant's credible testimony, the treatment records, and the findings by QME Dr. McGahan, it is found that Applicant sustained injury to his right shoulder arising out of and occurring in the course of employment on July 25, 2017.

  The WCJ found applicant sustained industrial injury to the right shoulder on July 25, 2017, based on credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. McGahan, despite defendant's challenge to evidence admission and applicant credibility.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14815013 · 2024-08-05 · Lodi District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact & Award of May 20, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed on March 22, 2021 as a fire engineer, applicant sustained industrial injury to the neck and right shoulder causing permanent disability of 3% after apportionment. Previously, on August 26, 2016, applicant received a stipulated Award of 28% permanent disability for an August 19, 2013 industrial injury to the neck and right shoulder in case ADJ9994609. In the instant case, it was found that applicant's overall permanent disability was 31%, but the WCJ apportioned to the prior award of permanent disability in ADJ9994609 pursuant to Labor Code section 4664 to arrive at 3% compensable permanent disability.

  The WCAB found the WCJ erred in applying Labor Code section 4664 apportionment without sufficient evidence of overlap between prior and current disability; the matter was deferred for further medical evidence and analysis.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19153721 · 2024-06-28 · Redding District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2The Appeals Board is authorized under Labor Code section 5310 to remove to itself, as it deems necessary in any workers' compensation matter, "the proceedings in any claim." This power of removal is discretionary and is generally employed only as an extraordinary remedy. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843, subd. (a); Castro v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 61 Cal.Comp.Cases 1460 (writ den.); Swedlow, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Smith) (1985) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 476 (writ den.).)

  The Appeals Board has discretionary authority under Labor Code section 5310 to remove proceedings to itself as an extraordinary remedy; removal was granted to obtain additional information and defer final decision on merits.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16041574 · 2024-05-28 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Defendant, by and through its counsel, Joel Kautz of Lenahan, Slater, Pearse & Majemik, LLP, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration and Removal challenging the Findings and Award dated March 6, 2024.

  The WCAB found substantial medical evidence supported the temporary disability period from September 27, 2017 through December 3, 2018, based on the medical opinions of Dr. Taylor and Dr. McCormack, and the applicant's testimony. The WCAB also found a duty to develop the record for the period after December 3, 2018, but denied reconsideration and removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 15.

• LENAHAN, SLATER, PEARSE & MAJERNIK, LLP
• LENAHAN, SLATER, PEARSE & MAJERNIK
• LENAHAN SLATER
• Lenahan, Slater, Pearse & Majernik
• LENAHAN SLATER PEARSE & MAJERNIK
• Joel Kautz of Lenahan, Slater, Pearse & Majemik, LLP
• LENAHAN, LEE, SLATER, PEARSE & MAJERNICK, LLP
• LENAHAN, LEE, SLATER, PEARSE & MAJERNIK, LLP
• Lenahan, Slater, Pearse & Marjernik, LLP
• Lenahan, Slater, Pearse, & Majernik LLP
• Lenahan, Slater, Pearse & Majernik LLP
• LENAHAN LEE SLATER PEARSE & MAJERNIK

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.