California WCABLaw firm

Louie & Stettler

Louie & Stettler is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2018–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (2), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1) and Statute of limitations (1). They were heard most often at Anaheim, then Los Angeles.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2018–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 5

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Anaheim 2
Los Angeles 2
Oakland 1
Pomona 1
Santa Ana 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.

3 for the applicant
3 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ19613976 · 2025-11-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision" (Findings) issued on August 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicants' claim of death benefits was barred by Labor Code1 section 5406(b) because applicant failed to file a claim for death benefits within one year from the date of decedent's death.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in barring the claim solely on the statute of limitations without evidence of notice to the applicant and without establishing the date of injury. The Board granted reconsideration and returned the matter for further proceedings to develop the record on these issues.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6818414 · 2021-09-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (Mitsui) seeks reconsideration of the July 12, 2021 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution because applicant's Labor Code section 5412 date of injury was after his last date of employment and Mitsui insured applicant's employer during the last year of industrial exposure.1 The arbitrator found that "applicant's date of cumulative trauma, as defined by the provisions of Labor Code § 5500.5 and § 5412, to be June 16, 2007 through June 16, 2008." The arbitrator denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution.
The Board found that the applicant's date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 was June 2, 2009, after the last date of injurious exposure, and denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution because Mitsui insured the employer during the last year of injurious exposure.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6726149 · 2018-03-22 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1214 Section 4903.05(c)(2) states that lien claimants "shall have until July 1, 2017" to file the
The lien claimant filed the Supplemental Lien Form and Section 4903.05(c) Declaration on July 3, 2017, which was timely filed because July 1, 2017 fell on a Saturday, extending the deadline to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 3, 2017, consistent with statutory rules of procedure.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ16267092 · 2026-07-23 · Anaheim District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of the “Joint Findings of Fact” (F&A) issued on November 20, 2025, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was not an employee of defendant, but an independent contractor. Applicant contends that he was an employee and that defendant failed to establish its affirmative defense. We have received an answer from defendant. We received a request to file a supplemental petition from applicant, which we accept. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration. Thereafter, we issued an order granting the petition, pending further review of the entire record. Subsequently, the parties successfully participated in a voluntary mediation at the Appeals Board. On July 16, 2026, the parties advised that a proposed settlement by Compromise and Release (C&R) had been reached, and requested return of the matter to the trial level for review of the proposed settlement.
The WCJ found the applicant was an independent contractor, not an employee. The Appeals Board rescinded that decision and returned the matter for settlement consideration, without ruling on the merits of the employment status dispute.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12288709 · 2023-10-02 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any issues raised in the petition and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision.
The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior WCJ decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13029259 · 2022-04-29 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on January 25, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so the Board dismissed it.
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.

LOUIE & STETTLER
Louie & Stettler

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 →

Louie & Stettler

Decisions

Years

2018–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

3 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ19613976 · 2025-11-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision" (Findings) issued on August 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicants' claim of death benefits was barred by Labor Code1 section 5406(b) because applicant failed to file a claim for death benefits within one year from the date of decedent's death.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in barring the claim solely on the statute of limitations without evidence of notice to the applicant and without establishing the date of injury. The Board granted reconsideration and returned the matter for further proceedings to develop the record on these issues.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6818414 · 2021-09-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (Mitsui) seeks reconsideration of the July 12, 2021 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution because applicant's Labor Code section 5412 date of injury was after his last date of employment and Mitsui insured applicant's employer during the last year of industrial exposure.1 The arbitrator found that "applicant's date of cumulative trauma, as defined by the provisions of Labor Code § 5500.5 and § 5412, to be June 16, 2007 through June 16, 2008." The arbitrator denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution.

The Board found that the applicant's date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 was June 2, 2009, after the last date of injurious exposure, and denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution because Mitsui insured the employer during the last year of injurious exposure.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6726149 · 2018-03-22 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1214 Section 4903.05(c)(2) states that lien claimants "shall have until July 1, 2017" to file the

The lien claimant filed the Supplemental Lien Form and Section 4903.05(c) Declaration on July 3, 2017, which was timely filed because July 1, 2017 fell on a Saturday, extending the deadline to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 3, 2017, consistent with statutory rules of procedure.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ16267092 · 2026-07-23 · Anaheim District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of the “Joint Findings of Fact” (F&A) issued on November 20, 2025, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was not an employee of defendant, but an independent contractor. Applicant contends that he was an employee and that defendant failed to establish its affirmative defense. We have received an answer from defendant. We received a request to file a supplemental petition from applicant, which we accept. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration. Thereafter, we issued an order granting the petition, pending further review of the entire record. Subsequently, the parties successfully participated in a voluntary mediation at the Appeals Board. On July 16, 2026, the parties advised that a proposed settlement by Compromise and Release (C&R) had been reached, and requested return of the matter to the trial level for review of the proposed settlement.

The WCJ found the applicant was an independent contractor, not an employee. The Appeals Board rescinded that decision and returned the matter for settlement consideration, without ruling on the merits of the employment status dispute.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12288709 · 2023-10-02 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any issues raised in the petition and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision.

The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior WCJ decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13029259 · 2022-04-29 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on January 25, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so the Board dismissed it.

Official decision · page 1 →