California WCABLaw firm

Meechan, Rosenthal & Karpilow

Meechan, Rosenthal & Karpilow is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Statute of limitations (2) and Death benefits (1). They were heard most often at Santa Rosa. The firm it meets most often is Bradford & Barthel (2).

Decisions: 7
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 7 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

Where they appear

Santa Rosa 7

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 applicant
1 for the defense

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.

ADJ18371631 · 2026-03-13 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.'" (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Here, to find industrial injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees, the WCJ relied on the medical evidence of global PQME, Adam J.
The WCJ relied on substantial medical evidence from PQME Dr. Stoller and credible applicant testimony to find injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees during the cumulative trauma period through June 30, 2017.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12730898 · 2024-08-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Defendant produced insufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof as to the initial
Defendant failed to prove applicant was the initial physical aggressor; coworker did not testify and witness testimony was limited and uncertain; injury is industrial and presumptively accepted due to untimely denial by defendant.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ12459250 · 2024-04-26 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3The parties proceeded to trial on August 3, 2022. The issues submitted for decision were: "1. Temporary disability: Employee claiming the following period: From October 29, 2018 through 104 weeks. 2. Permanent and stationary date: Employee claims not applicable based on the PQME; employer/carrier claims September 14, 2020 based on Dr. Andolsen. 3. Applicant alleges penalties and TTD Failure to pay anything after the QME. 4. Defendant alleges applicant is a seasonal and temporary employee from August through November." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 8/3/22, 3:3-3:14.)
Applicant was found entitled to temporary disability benefits from the date of injury through the date of the QME evaluation, as defendant failed to prove termination for cause and applicant's testimony and QME report supported ongoing disability.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11274331 · 2022-08-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Bd. (Barry) (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 915, 926§ 927 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 904, 912].) We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.; Bracken v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 246, 254-256 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 349].) Here, our review of the record shows that testimony by multiple witnesses supported the WCJ's conclusion that applicant's son was a total dependent under Labor Code section 3501(a) and that therefore he was entitled to the enhanced death benefit in Labor Code section 4703.5, and we will not disturb it.
The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and supported by multiple witnesses' testimony that the applicant's son was living with the decedent at the time of injury, entitling him to the enhanced death benefit.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ9830518 · 2026-01-28 · Santa Rosa 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
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
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.

MEECHAN, ROSENTHAL & KARPILOW
Meechan, Rosenthal & Karpilow
MEECHAN ROSENTHAL & KARPILOW
Meechan Rosenthal & Karpilow
MEECHAN, ROSENTHAL & KAPILOW
MEECHAN ROSENTHAL

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 →

Meechan, Rosenthal & Karpilow

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

1 for the defense

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.

ADJ18371631 · 2026-03-13 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.'" (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Here, to find industrial injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees, the WCJ relied on the medical evidence of global PQME, Adam J.

The WCJ relied on substantial medical evidence from PQME Dr. Stoller and credible applicant testimony to find injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees during the cumulative trauma period through June 30, 2017.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12730898 · 2024-08-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Defendant produced insufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof as to the initial

Defendant failed to prove applicant was the initial physical aggressor; coworker did not testify and witness testimony was limited and uncertain; injury is industrial and presumptively accepted due to untimely denial by defendant.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ12459250 · 2024-04-26 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3The parties proceeded to trial on August 3, 2022. The issues submitted for decision were: "1. Temporary disability: Employee claiming the following period: From October 29, 2018 through 104 weeks. 2. Permanent and stationary date: Employee claims not applicable based on the PQME; employer/carrier claims September 14, 2020 based on Dr. Andolsen. 3. Applicant alleges penalties and TTD Failure to pay anything after the QME. 4. Defendant alleges applicant is a seasonal and temporary employee from August through November." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 8/3/22, 3:3-3:14.)

Applicant was found entitled to temporary disability benefits from the date of injury through the date of the QME evaluation, as defendant failed to prove termination for cause and applicant's testimony and QME report supported ongoing disability.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11274331 · 2022-08-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Bd. (Barry) (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 915, 926§ 927 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 904, 912].) We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.; Bracken v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 246, 254-256 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 349].) Here, our review of the record shows that testimony by multiple witnesses supported the WCJ's conclusion that applicant's son was a total dependent under Labor Code section 3501(a) and that therefore he was entitled to the enhanced death benefit in Labor Code section 4703.5, and we will not disturb it.

The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and supported by multiple witnesses' testimony that the applicant's son was living with the decedent at the time of injury, entitling him to the enhanced death benefit.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ9830518 · 2026-01-28 · Santa Rosa 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

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

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.

MEECHAN, ROSENTHAL & KARPILOW

Meechan, Rosenthal & Karpilow

MEECHAN ROSENTHAL & KARPILOW

Meechan Rosenthal & Karpilow

MEECHAN, ROSENTHAL & KAPILOW

MEECHAN ROSENTHAL