Siegel, Moreno & Stettler

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• San Diego 8
• Santa Ana 7
• Anaheim 5
• Pomona 5
• Van Nuys 5
• Riverside 4
• Marina del Rey 2
• Oakland 2
• Long Beach 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Redding 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.

• 21 for the defense
• 15 for the applicant
• 6 returned for more record

Counted over 40 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.

• ADJ10283590 · 2026-04-24 · Pomona District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, Physical Rehabilitation Services, Inc., seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on January 29, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that lien claimant failed to prove that applicant sustained industrial injury and "awarded" lien claimant nothing on its lien claim.1

  The WCJ erred in ordering lien claimant to take nothing on its lien because the admitted injury to the right knee was not properly brought to the WCJ's attention, and defendant failed to produce a denial letter for the claim, warranting reconsideration and further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16728100 · 2025-10-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Cost petitioner contends, in pertinent part, that the discovery issues remain relevant and that defendant engaged in bad faith actions by unreasonably delaying payment.

  The Cost Petitioner failed to prove bad faith by the defendants, which is required to impose sanctions and attorney fees under Labor Code section 5813 and CCR section 10545(h). The defendants paid the requested amount and a self-imposed penalty, and no evidence of unreasonable delay or bad faith was presented.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8627409 · 2025-02-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, AIFSIF's attorneys filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Summit, the administrator, on April 12, 2021. This Notice of Appearance contains no indication that Summit and therefore AIFSIF was appearing specially to contest personal jurisdiction. Strictly speaking, it appears that this conduct was sufficient, standing alone, to waive any objection to personal jurisdiction, despite the attorney's assertion three days later of the personal jurisdiction objection at the first hearing the attorney attended.

  AIFSIF's conduct, including filing a Notice of Appearance without a special appearance and participating in the merits for nearly two years before seeking adjudication, constituted a waiver of personal jurisdiction objection.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9589869 · 2024-06-20 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8The alleged injury in this matter is a bacterial infection. The parties have litigated this case as if they were litigating a direct occupational disease. A direct occupational disease occurs where the injured worker's point of infection can be established through evidence. Here, no such evidence is in the record, and it does not appear that such evidence exists. As neither party can establish the direct cause of the bacterial infection, the appropriate legal standard in this case is whether the infection meets the causation threshold for nonoccupational disease per Latourette. (Ibid.) Where it is impossible to pinpoint the direct cause of an infection, we must determine whether applicant's occupational duties exposed applicant to an increased risk of acquiring the infection to that of the general public. (Ibid.) This question was not presented to any of the doctors. Accordingly, the record requires development.

  The record lacks evidence to establish the direct cause of the bacterial infection as industrial injury; the case is remanded for further development to determine if applicant's occupational duties increased risk of infection.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ8627409 · 2024-04-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Statute of Limitations Defendants each assert that the applicant's claims are barred by California's statute of limitations, which requires a claim for workers' compensation benefits be commenced within one year of the date of injury [Labor Code section 5405]. For a cumulative trauma claim there is no one event of injury because such a claim involves a series of repetitive traumatic activities. Labor Code section 5412 provides the legal date of injury for purposes of determining commencement of the one-year time. The date of injury here was found to be January 2014. The Application for Adjudication was

  The date of injury was found to be January 2014, and the claim was filed in November 2012, so the statute of limitations did not bar the claim. Applicant's corrected testimony about timing was found credible and unrebutted.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12382020 · 2023-12-22 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10The subsequent CT injury must have been filed within the time deadlines in Labor Code Section 5405. The court was persuaded by Applicant's argument in their trial brief, consistent with the Plotnick case, that when treatment is provided for an injury that settled via stipulated award and Applicant has another unfiled date of injury for the same body part, when he gets treatment under the stipulated award he is also getting treatment on the unfiled case for purposes of Labor Code Section 5405(c). Applicant was still getting treatment for the neck under his stipulated award in ADJ6967095 less than a year before the Application for Adjudication was filed in the case as bar for the same body part. Thus, the claim is not barred under Labor Code Section 5405.

  The court found that the claim was timely filed within one year after the last provision of treatment pursuant to Labor Code Section 5405(c), and that ongoing medical treatment tolled the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ7912629 · 2023-09-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.23In summary, we have previously provided notice of intention to affirm our June 12, 2018 Opinion and Order Granting Petitions for Reconsideration and Decision after Reconsideration except to amend the March 20, 2018 Findings and Award, to find that the issue of applicant's Permanent and Stationary date is deferred (Finding of Fact No. 5); that the issues of permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney's fees are deferred (Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7, 15); and that the issue of the applicable rating schedule is deferred (Finding of Fact No. 10). We have further provided notice of our intention to rescind the WCJ's April 12, 2019 Findings and Award, and substitute a new Findings and Award reflecting that applicant's date of injury was March 20, 2014 (Findings of Fact No. 1); that applicant's disability must be rated using the AMA Guides, pursuant to section 4660.1 (Finding of Fact No. 2); that applicant's Permanent and Stationary date is March 20, 2014 (Finding of Fact No. 5); and that the issues of permanent disability, COLA adjustment, and attorney fees are deferred (Findings of Fact Nos. 6 & 7). We continue to exercise our original jurisdiction because there has been no prior final award of compensation. We further conclude that

  The Board deferred the issues of permanent disability, apportionment, attorney fees, COLA adjustment, and other issues for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 23 →
• ADJ12837754 · 2023-08-04 · Anaheim District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Based upon our initial review, it appears that the evidence in this case does not justify the Findings of Fact as required by Labor Code section 5903, in that the opinion of treating physician Michael Bazel, M.D., appears to constitute substantial medical evidence consistent with Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).

  The WCJ's findings were found insufficient under Labor Code section 5903 because the treating physician's opinion constituted substantial medical evidence, requiring reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13556902 · 2023-06-16 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant (Medland Medical) seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order(F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 22, 2023 wherein the WCJ found that the reporting of Medland Medical did not qualify as medical- legal reporting and was not necessary to relieve or cure applicant's industrial injuries, and ordered that lien claimant take nothing by way of their lien.

  The WCJ erred by relying solely on QME reports without addressing the stipulated injury AOE/COE and by failing to consider the defendant's lack of utilization review evidence; the Appeals Board found the record incomplete and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9388767 · 2022-12-28 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Based upon applicant's credible testimony and the medical reports of Dr. Michael Kimball, M.D., Dr. Peter Hanson, M.D. and Dr. John Lane, M.D., various dates, it is found that applicant sustained injury to his left knee, right knee, right hip, neck and back arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period 2003 to and including January 20, 2017. The date of injury pursuant to Labor Code Section 5412 is discussed below. THERE IS ONLY ONE CONTINUOUS TRAUMA PERIOD

  The continuous trauma injury to left knee, right knee, right hip, neck, and back was found compensable with one continuous trauma period and the date of injury as April 1, 2014. Liability was placed on the petitioner as the sole carrier during the one-year period following the date of injury.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ9069066 · 2022-08-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of January 27, 2022 wherein it was found that while employed as a professional gridiron football player applicant sustained two separate cumulative injuries. The WCJ found "The first cumulative trauma injury is for the period June 15, 1975 through November 10, 1979 while applicant was employed by the [Los Angeles] Rams and the second cumulative trauma injury is for the period April 29, 1983 through the 1984 season while applicant was employed by the Washington Federals and the Houston Gamblers." The only issue for adjudication at trial was whether applicant sustained one or two periods of cumulative injury. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of August 16, 2021 trial at p. 2.)

  Both reporting physicians opined that applicant sustained two separate cumulative injuries, and there was no medical evidence to rebut these uncontroverted opinions. The WCJ's factual findings on this issue were upheld.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11812498 · 2021-05-11 · Anaheim District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, (Findings) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 18, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her left shoulder, and that applicant was not entitled to temporary disability benefits for the period from November 2, 2020, "to present." (Findings.)

  The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to support an award of temporary disability benefits from November 2, 2020, onward, as the medical reports did not meet the substantial evidence criteria and the applicant was already receiving lifetime medical treatment after the injury was deemed permanent and stationary.

  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.

• SIEGEL, MORENO & STETTLER
• SIEGEL, MORENO & STETTLER, APC
• SIEGEL MORENO
• Siegel, Moreno & Stettler
• SIEGEL MORENO & STETTLER
• LAW OFFICES OF SIEGEL, MORENO & STETTLER, APC
• Siegel Moreno & Stettler
• Siegel Moreno Sacramento
• SIEGEL MORENO STETTLER
• Siegel Moreno

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.