RTGR Law LLP

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 15
• San Francisco 5
• Sacramento 3
• Los Angeles 2
• San Jose 2
• Santa Rosa 2
• Marina del Rey 1
• San Diego 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.

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

Counted over 27 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.

• ADJ12792074 · 2026-04-27 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 23, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained 57% permanent disability, after apportionment, for injuries to his right arm, right wrist, left wrist, left hip, and psyche. The WCJ also found that the "violent act" exception applied under Labor Code section1 4660.1 and that applicant did not rebut the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) with vocational evidence.

  The WCJ found 57% permanent disability after apportionment but did not find that applicant rebutted the PDRS with vocational evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed, particularly regarding vocational and medical evidence, and granted reconsideration for further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14216452 · 2025-09-12 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, PQME Dr. Bruce Huffer fails to meet even a rudimentary level of review and analysis sufficient to be considered substantial evidence. His opinions are based on an evaluation now more than three years old. It also appears he has not reviewed some of the relevant medical reporting. The failure to discuss the medical record and how it does or does not affect his opinions renders his reporting unsubstantial. This conclusory reporting has been consistent over six reports. It is clear returning to PQME Dr. Huffer at this time would result only in further delay without meaningful result.

  PQME Dr. Bruce Huffer's reports lack substantial evidence due to failure to discuss relevant medical records and provide reasoning, rendering his 0% permanent disability rating unsubstantial. Further medical development is necessary.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15251480 · 2025-06-03 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Order" (F&O) issued on March 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction to determine an applicant's entitlement to advance disability pension payments ("ADPP") under Labor Code1 section 4850.4.

  The Appeals Board has jurisdiction to award ADPP as it constitutes compensation under Division 4 of the Labor Code, consistent with Gage. The issue of entitlement to ADPP must be decided at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16819535 · 2025-02-21 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we will grant the Petition, and, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&A and substitute findings that defer the issues of temporary disability and attorney's fees; and we will return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The issue of temporary disability and attorney's fees was deferred due to defendant being deprived of due process by admission of a medical report after discovery closed, requiring further discovery and hearing.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ20141060 · 2025-01-21 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On October 11, 2024, the WCA issued his F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant's injury resulted in 33 percent permanent disability. The WCA's Opinion on Decision reviewed the reporting of both IME Dr. Stark as well as Dr. D'Amico but found the reporting of Dr. Stark to be the more persuasive. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6-8.) Dr. Stark determined that applicant's "strict" rating pursuant to the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Edition (AMA Guides), was eight percent impairment using a Diagnosis Related Estimate (DRE) approach. However, Dr. Stark further opined that the impairment derived from the DRE approach did not accurately represent applicant's functional loss, including applicant's losses in capacity for lifting. (Id. at p. 6.) Thus, Dr. Stark rated applicant's disability by analogy to hernia using AMA Guides Table 6-9 and assessed 15 percent impairment. (Ibid.) When adjusted by the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, applicant's impairment rated to 33 percent permanent disability. (Finding of Fact No. 5; Award No. "a".)

  The panel found Dr. Stark's opinion persuasive that the strict AMA Guides rating did not accurately reflect applicant's disability due to significant lifting capacity loss, and that the alternative rating by analogy to hernia injury was appropriate and supported by substantial medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ15186514 · 2024-12-13 · Oakland District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.16As to the sufficiency of Dr. Jacks 4/18/2022 IME Report, as summarized herein above, I find it qualifies as substantial medical evidence regarding his diagnosis of Applicant's PTSD. He noted references in the medical records after the September 23, 2019 date listing diagnoses of PTSD. He reviewed several of the work-related traumatic events experienced by Applicant as a Firefighter with the Richmond Fire Department, and found a link between the September 2019 school shooting incident, and subsequent work traumas, and the development of Applicant's PTSD symptomology.

  The Board found Dr. Jacks' report to be thorough, based on extensive psychiatric consultation, psychological testing, and review of medical records, constituting substantial evidence supporting the PTSD diagnosis and industrial causation, while Dr. Keins' report was found unsubstantial due to lack of medical record review and untimely supplemental report.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ14002457 · 2024-12-02 · San Jose District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4II. The determination of compensability, the existence or extent of permanent impairment, and limitations, if any, resulting from an injury all require a medical evaluation. When deciding a medical issue, including whether applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury, the WCJ must utilize expert medical opinion. (See Insurance Company of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kemp) (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 911-912 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913].) Here, applicant requested a QME panel in the specialty of psychiatry, the parties exercised their respective strikes, and Dr. Sidle remained. Thereafter, applicant filed a request for a new panel on the basis that Dr. Sidle had retired as a QME. At the time of trial, applicant alleged that she was still awaiting evaluation by a QME, which had not been authorized. (MOH/SOE, May 1, 2024 trial, p. 3.) As an unrepresented employee, applicant would require an evaluation by a QME to determine compensability, if any, and the existence or extent of permanent impairment.

  The WCJ's finding of no compensable psychiatric injury was rescinded due to lack of a QME evaluation, and the matter was returned for further proceedings to develop the record properly.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ15599962 · 2024-11-26 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9In this matter, it is true that applicant continued to conduct discovery with his IME after the termination of the ADR agreement. (Exhibit H, Invoice, May 15, 2021; Exhibit I, Report of Eduardo Lin, July 14, 2021; Exhibit S, Medical Cover Letter, July 13, 2021, Exhibit T, Notice of Deposition, April 26, 2021.) [...] In light of the overall record as described above, we are persuaded that the preponderance of evidence establishes that the parties in this case must continue using IMEs as mandated by the ADR agreement. We will amend the Findings of Fact dated April 21, 2022 to rescind the WCJ's findings that that defendant waived the argument that the IME process described in the ADR agreement controls the medical-legal process herein, and that special circumstances exist that render it unjust to enforce the provisions of the ADR contract regarding the usage of IMEs. We will replace those findings with our findings to the contrary, and we will add our own finding that resolves the issue presented at trial, i.e., the parties shall continue using IMEs pursuant to the ADR agreement.

  The Appeals Board found that the preponderance of evidence supports continuing the use of IMEs as mandated by the ADR agreement, rescinding the WCJ's contrary findings and rejecting the argument that it would be unjust to enforce the ADR provisions regarding IMEs.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ11385337 · 2024-11-07 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact and Award issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on July 31, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) during the period through April 24, 2019 to her bilateral shoulders, neck, bilateral elbows, wrists, hands, and low back. The WCJ further found that her injury caused permanent disability of 100%, because she is precluded from employment in the open labor market, and that this resolves applicant's petition to reopen case number ADJ8045352.

  The Appeals Board found that the record was insufficient to support the WCJ's finding of 100% permanent total disability without proper apportionment under Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664, and that further development of the record was necessary to determine apportionment between multiple industrial injuries.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11167605 · 2024-04-09 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 9, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not rebut the Combined Values Chart (CVC) in the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS), and that her bi-lateral hands and wrists injury caused 89% permanent partial disability.

  The Appeals Board found that Dr. Feinberg's opinions were not substantial evidence because they lacked detailed explanation and did not consider surveillance videos, thus requiring further development of the record and a new decision by the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11167605 · 2023-10-30 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 9, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not rebut the Combined Values Chart (CVC) in the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS), and that her bi-lateral hands and wrists injury caused 89% permanent partial disability.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because Dr. Feinberg's opinions require further detailed explanation and consideration of surveillance evidence to determine the accurate permanent disability rating and apportionment, particularly whether the factors of disability should be added rather than combined.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15490866 · 2023-10-06 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The matter proceeded to trial on June 15, 2023, with applicant and Captain Eric Smith testifying. The sole issue for trial was whether applicant catching covid-19 while out on administrative leave at 24 Hour Fitness, was AOE/COE.

  Applicant had a reasonable belief that going to the gym was expected by the employer and that belief was objectively reasonable, supported by testimony and facts that officers are required to maintain physical fitness and the gym was paid for by the employer.

  Official decision · page 4 →

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.

• RTGR LAW
• RTGR LAW LLP
• RTGR LAW, LLP
• RTGR Law LLP
• RTGR LAW FIRM
• RTGR Law

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.