California WCABLaw firm

Metzinger & Associates

Metzinger & Associates is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (4), Apportionment (3) and AOE/COE (2). They were heard most often at Sacramento, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Bradford & Barthel (2).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 14 of 14 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

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Sacramento 9
Van Nuys 3

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.

7 for the applicant
5 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ17103616 · 2026-05-22 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 10, 2026. Therein the WCJ found that, while employed as a battery tech and roadside assistant on June 13, 2022, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, and left shoulder. The WCJ further found that "[t]he record needs further development, with a neurologist, as to whether Applicant sustained a compensable injury to the head (characterized as headaches) because of the June 13, 2022, incident." Based on these findings, the WCJ issued the following order:
The WCJ found the chiropractic QME's opinion on headaches was speculative and not substantial medical evidence, justifying ordering a neurological QME panel; the Appeals Board amended the order to remove language broadly disqualifying chiropractic opinions but affirmed the need for a neurological QME.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10256108 · 2025-08-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Amended Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 7, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part: that as to the issue of apportionment pursuant to Labor Code section 4663, agreed medical evaluator (AME) Dr. Hasday's opinion does not constitute substantial evidence; that applicant is entitled to an un-apportioned combined award; and that in accordance with the September 23, 2022 opinion of the Appeals Board1 and the previous September 8, 2021 Findings and Awards of WCJ Devine, applicant is 100% permanently totally disabled on an industrial basis, without apportionment.
The WCJ and WCAB found that Dr. Hasday's apportionment analysis addressed impairment and causation of injury rather than apportionment of disability as required by Labor Code section 4663, thus it was not substantial evidence. The combined award for 100% permanent total disability without apportionment was upheld.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10256108 · 2022-09-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.8Thus, in connection with applicant's permanent and total disability, Dr. Hasday apportions 10 percent of the cervical spine disability to preexisting degenerative disc disease, 20 percent of the thoracic spine disability to preexisting degenerative disc disease, and 20 percent of the lumbar spine disability to preexisting grade I isthmic spondylolisthesis at L5-S1. Dr. Hasday also provided medical reasoning and evidence in support of these conclusions. Other than stating that it was applicant's three spinal surgeries in 2016 that caused all his permanent disability, which is contrary to Dr. Hasday's opinion, the WCJ's Report does not address defendant's contention regarding apportionment under Labor Code section 4663. (See, e.g., E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 930 (71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687) [Section 4663(c) satisfied where evaluating physician makes determination, based on medical expertise, of the approximate percentage of permanent disability caused by degenerative condition of injured employee's back].)
The WCJ must revisit the issue of apportionment because Dr. Hasday's opinion indicates a portion of the permanent disability is caused by preexisting spinal disease, requiring further proceedings to determine the extent of apportionment.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ14746138 · 2022-06-13 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5In September 2021, Applicant had a QME evaluation by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Chen. Applicant reported working as park maintenance for the City of Sacramento for 21 years. He did not recall a specific injury but his left knee started hurting during his work duties. Dr. Chen performed a record review and physical exam. There was left knee crepitus globally. Dr. Chen diagnosed Applicant with left knee industrial exacerbation of underlying degenerative ar1hritis. However under causation, Dr. Chen found an industrial injury to the left knee within a reasonable medical probability. Dr. Chen opined there is a large contribution of left knee pain due to obesity arid degenerative arthritis but found Applicant s work duties to be quite physical. Dr. Chen clarified that he found some contribution of the left knee pain is due to work duties. Dr. Chen found no evidence of an industrial injury to the low back. Dr. Chen indicated
The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to the left knee based on credible testimony and the QME Dr. Chen's medical opinion, which was more persuasive than the defense's treating physician.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ9910849 · 2021-12-20 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5In the verified Petition for Reconsideration, applicant avers that "[a]t that time, notice was given of the ongoing Vocational Evaluation and the matter was not to be scheduled until after 1/1/2021." (May 12, 2021 Petition for Reconsideration at 3:13.) Defendant correctly observes that there is no reflection in the record of why the matter was not to be set until after January 1, 2021, and no indication of an ongoing vocational expert evaluation. (May 27, 2021 Answer to Petition for Reconsideration at 4:12.) However, at the January 28, 2021 MSC, the minutes reflect that following the November 12, 2020 ratings MSC, "applicant later requested a V.R. report and a supplemental report from the QME." (January 28, 2021 Minutes of Hearing.) Discovery was closed over applicant's objection, and the matter set for trial. Among the issues specifically raised by applicant in the pre-trial conference statement was an objection to the matter moving forward without the reporting of the vocational expert. (January 28, 2021 Pre-Trial Conference Statement at p.4.)
The WCAB found that the vocational expert report was improperly excluded, discovery was closed prematurely, and the matter required further proceedings to allow proper evaluation of the vocational expert report and related issues.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10753764 · 2021-06-07 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Defendant asserts that applicant's psychiatric claim is the result of three different causes including compensable consequences of an orthopedic injury. The problem with that assertion is that it is not born out by findings of fact in this specific cases, which are final and can't be revisited. As noted above WCALJ Samuel found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury to his teeth and psyche on August 29, 2018. No party sought reconsideration of that finding and so it became final and binding on the parties 25 days later. It is improper to presently look behind that finding and say that the psyche injury is due to a consequence of other injuries.
The psychiatric injury was found to arise out of and in the course of employment and was a final binding finding from the 2018 decision, not a compensable consequence of orthopedic injury, so defendant's challenge was denied.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ3198078 · 2021-03-01 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4On July 6, 2020, IMR upheld the utilization review decision. The clinical case summary provides that Applicant sustained an industrial injury in 1992 and received treatment for failed back syndrome, lumbar spine spondylosis, and altered gait due to kyphotic posture from using a walker. On May 12, 2020, Applicant complained of lower back pain radiating into the left lower extremity. The provider reported that an epidural steroid injection helped in the past. The IMR rationale cited MTUS Low Back Disorders 2019 Guidelines and indicated diagnostic lumbar facet injections are not recommended. (Exhibit BB)
The IMR determination was upheld because the medical guidelines do not recommend medial branch blocks for radiculopathy pain syndromes, and the applicant did not prove grounds to set aside the determination by clear and convincing evidence.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ2436963 · 2026-06-08 · Sacramento District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3On March 10, 2026, the WCJ issued her Findings, ruling that defendant had failed to meet its burden to establish a right to credit, thereby denying defendant's Petition for Credit. In her Opinion, the WCJ explained that without any documentation, including the settlement agreement itself, she could not determine the breakdown or the allocations of the funds. She could not tell if
Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish entitlement to a credit due to lack of settlement documentation and evidence of allocation of funds, as well as no medical evidence linking third party negligence to increased disability or compensation owed.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10256108 · 2024-09-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On July 15, 2024, applicant filed a Petition for Removal and/or Reconsideration regarding the May 8, 2024 Minute Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). On August 26, 2024, applicant also filed a Petition for Reconsideration from the August 8, 2024 Amended Findings and Award Post Reconsideration. We have considered the allegations of the petitions and the contents of the WCJ's Reports with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we dismiss the July 15, 2024 Petition for Removal and/or Reconsideration as moot. For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the August 8, 2024 Amended Findings and Award Post Reconsideration, and return this matter to the Presiding Judge for reassignment to a different WCJ, due to the WCJ's apparent request for recusal.
The Appeals Board dismissed the July 15, 2024 Petition for Removal and/or Reconsideration as moot and granted the August 26, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding the August 8, 2024 Amended Findings and Award Post Reconsideration and returning the matter for reassignment due to the WCJ's apparent request for recusal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12912208 · 2022-08-05 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 11, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Defendant's request to withdraw its Petition was submitted by way of proposed minutes (EAMS document number 42116104). We remind defendant's counsel to notify the Appeals Board directly regarding action on a petition pending before the Appeals Board, including a request to withdraw the petition.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by defendant and therefore dismissed by the Appeals Board.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10988059 · 2021-05-28 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's March 22, 2021 Findings and Order is an intermediate procedural order. The order does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
The WCJ's order was an intermediate procedural order, not a final order, and did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue. No showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

METZINGER & ASSOCIATES
METZINGER AND ASSOCIATES
Metzinger & Associates

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 →

Metzinger & Associates

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

7 for the applicant

5 for the defense

1 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.

ADJ17103616 · 2026-05-22 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 10, 2026. Therein the WCJ found that, while employed as a battery tech and roadside assistant on June 13, 2022, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, and left shoulder. The WCJ further found that "[t]he record needs further development, with a neurologist, as to whether Applicant sustained a compensable injury to the head (characterized as headaches) because of the June 13, 2022, incident." Based on these findings, the WCJ issued the following order:

The WCJ found the chiropractic QME's opinion on headaches was speculative and not substantial medical evidence, justifying ordering a neurological QME panel; the Appeals Board amended the order to remove language broadly disqualifying chiropractic opinions but affirmed the need for a neurological QME.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10256108 · 2025-08-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Amended Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 7, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part: that as to the issue of apportionment pursuant to Labor Code section 4663, agreed medical evaluator (AME) Dr. Hasday's opinion does not constitute substantial evidence; that applicant is entitled to an un-apportioned combined award; and that in accordance with the September 23, 2022 opinion of the Appeals Board1 and the previous September 8, 2021 Findings and Awards of WCJ Devine, applicant is 100% permanently totally disabled on an industrial basis, without apportionment.

The WCJ and WCAB found that Dr. Hasday's apportionment analysis addressed impairment and causation of injury rather than apportionment of disability as required by Labor Code section 4663, thus it was not substantial evidence. The combined award for 100% permanent total disability without apportionment was upheld.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10256108 · 2022-09-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded

Determinative passage · p.8Thus, in connection with applicant's permanent and total disability, Dr. Hasday apportions 10 percent of the cervical spine disability to preexisting degenerative disc disease, 20 percent of the thoracic spine disability to preexisting degenerative disc disease, and 20 percent of the lumbar spine disability to preexisting grade I isthmic spondylolisthesis at L5-S1. Dr. Hasday also provided medical reasoning and evidence in support of these conclusions. Other than stating that it was applicant's three spinal surgeries in 2016 that caused all his permanent disability, which is contrary to Dr. Hasday's opinion, the WCJ's Report does not address defendant's contention regarding apportionment under Labor Code section 4663. (See, e.g., E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 930 (71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687) [Section 4663(c) satisfied where evaluating physician makes determination, based on medical expertise, of the approximate percentage of permanent disability caused by degenerative condition of injured employee's back].)

The WCJ must revisit the issue of apportionment because Dr. Hasday's opinion indicates a portion of the permanent disability is caused by preexisting spinal disease, requiring further proceedings to determine the extent of apportionment.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ14746138 · 2022-06-13 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5In September 2021, Applicant had a QME evaluation by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Chen. Applicant reported working as park maintenance for the City of Sacramento for 21 years. He did not recall a specific injury but his left knee started hurting during his work duties. Dr. Chen performed a record review and physical exam. There was left knee crepitus globally. Dr. Chen diagnosed Applicant with left knee industrial exacerbation of underlying degenerative ar1hritis. However under causation, Dr. Chen found an industrial injury to the left knee within a reasonable medical probability. Dr. Chen opined there is a large contribution of left knee pain due to obesity arid degenerative arthritis but found Applicant s work duties to be quite physical. Dr. Chen clarified that he found some contribution of the left knee pain is due to work duties. Dr. Chen found no evidence of an industrial injury to the low back. Dr. Chen indicated

The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to the left knee based on credible testimony and the QME Dr. Chen's medical opinion, which was more persuasive than the defense's treating physician.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ9910849 · 2021-12-20 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5In the verified Petition for Reconsideration, applicant avers that "[a]t that time, notice was given of the ongoing Vocational Evaluation and the matter was not to be scheduled until after 1/1/2021." (May 12, 2021 Petition for Reconsideration at 3:13.) Defendant correctly observes that there is no reflection in the record of why the matter was not to be set until after January 1, 2021, and no indication of an ongoing vocational expert evaluation. (May 27, 2021 Answer to Petition for Reconsideration at 4:12.) However, at the January 28, 2021 MSC, the minutes reflect that following the November 12, 2020 ratings MSC, "applicant later requested a V.R. report and a supplemental report from the QME." (January 28, 2021 Minutes of Hearing.) Discovery was closed over applicant's objection, and the matter set for trial. Among the issues specifically raised by applicant in the pre-trial conference statement was an objection to the matter moving forward without the reporting of the vocational expert. (January 28, 2021 Pre-Trial Conference Statement at p.4.)

The WCAB found that the vocational expert report was improperly excluded, discovery was closed prematurely, and the matter required further proceedings to allow proper evaluation of the vocational expert report and related issues.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10753764 · 2021-06-07 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Defendant asserts that applicant's psychiatric claim is the result of three different causes including compensable consequences of an orthopedic injury. The problem with that assertion is that it is not born out by findings of fact in this specific cases, which are final and can't be revisited. As noted above WCALJ Samuel found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury to his teeth and psyche on August 29, 2018. No party sought reconsideration of that finding and so it became final and binding on the parties 25 days later. It is improper to presently look behind that finding and say that the psyche injury is due to a consequence of other injuries.

The psychiatric injury was found to arise out of and in the course of employment and was a final binding finding from the 2018 decision, not a compensable consequence of orthopedic injury, so defendant's challenge was denied.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ3198078 · 2021-03-01 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4On July 6, 2020, IMR upheld the utilization review decision. The clinical case summary provides that Applicant sustained an industrial injury in 1992 and received treatment for failed back syndrome, lumbar spine spondylosis, and altered gait due to kyphotic posture from using a walker. On May 12, 2020, Applicant complained of lower back pain radiating into the left lower extremity. The provider reported that an epidural steroid injection helped in the past. The IMR rationale cited MTUS Low Back Disorders 2019 Guidelines and indicated diagnostic lumbar facet injections are not recommended. (Exhibit BB)

The IMR determination was upheld because the medical guidelines do not recommend medial branch blocks for radiculopathy pain syndromes, and the applicant did not prove grounds to set aside the determination by clear and convincing evidence.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ2436963 · 2026-06-08 · Sacramento District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3On March 10, 2026, the WCJ issued her Findings, ruling that defendant had failed to meet its burden to establish a right to credit, thereby denying defendant's Petition for Credit. In her Opinion, the WCJ explained that without any documentation, including the settlement agreement itself, she could not determine the breakdown or the allocations of the funds. She could not tell if

Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish entitlement to a credit due to lack of settlement documentation and evidence of allocation of funds, as well as no medical evidence linking third party negligence to increased disability or compensation owed.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10256108 · 2024-09-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On July 15, 2024, applicant filed a Petition for Removal and/or Reconsideration regarding the May 8, 2024 Minute Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). On August 26, 2024, applicant also filed a Petition for Reconsideration from the August 8, 2024 Amended Findings and Award Post Reconsideration. We have considered the allegations of the petitions and the contents of the WCJ's Reports with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we dismiss the July 15, 2024 Petition for Removal and/or Reconsideration as moot. For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the August 8, 2024 Amended Findings and Award Post Reconsideration, and return this matter to the Presiding Judge for reassignment to a different WCJ, due to the WCJ's apparent request for recusal.

The Appeals Board dismissed the July 15, 2024 Petition for Removal and/or Reconsideration as moot and granted the August 26, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding the August 8, 2024 Amended Findings and Award Post Reconsideration and returning the matter for reassignment due to the WCJ's apparent request for recusal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12912208 · 2022-08-05 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 11, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Defendant's request to withdraw its Petition was submitted by way of proposed minutes (EAMS document number 42116104). We remind defendant's counsel to notify the Appeals Board directly regarding action on a petition pending before the Appeals Board, including a request to withdraw the petition.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by defendant and therefore dismissed by the Appeals Board.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10988059 · 2021-05-28 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's March 22, 2021 Findings and Order is an intermediate procedural order. The order does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration.

The WCJ's order was an intermediate procedural order, not a final order, and did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue. No showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Official decision · page 2 →