Sprenkle, Georgariou & Dilles, LLP

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Salinas 29

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.

• 18 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 27 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.

• ADJ14038029 · 2024-03-12 · Salinas District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.133. Pursuant to Labor Code section 5412, the date of injury was December 11, 2020. 4. Compensation is not barred by Labor Code section 5405. 5. Applicant's gastritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease and related insomnia are

  The date of injury was set at December 11, 2020, when applicant first had compensable disability and knowledge of industrial causation, making the claim timely under section 5405.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ14275855 · 2023-01-20 · Salinas District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 24, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that pursuant to Administrative Director rule 979, qualified medical examiner (QME) Rex Lockwood, D.C., is entitled to additional advanced payment of a minimum of two hours for his deposition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9022023 · 2022-08-22 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We note that there is an error in the calculation of permanent disability in the WCJ's decision. The WCJ awards 80% permanent disability, with the following calculation of permanent disability appearing on page 8 of the Opinion on Decision: 35C23=64+9=73C13=77C9=79C6=80 [Emphasis added.]

  The WCJ erred in the calculation of permanent disability and in not incorporating Dr. Betoushana's range of motion and lifting impairment findings; the WCAB corrected the calculation and found 78% permanent disability.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11102338 · 2022-08-05 · Salinas District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ found that applicant's psyche injury was not compensable under section 4660.1(c)(2)(A) because the act of slipping and falling and being struck in the elbow by a weedwhacker was not a "violent act" within the meaning of the statute. We agree with the WCJ's conclusion. Significantly, since applicant did not provide testimony at trial, it is unclear exactly how the injury occurred, and the WCJ was unable to weigh the testimony and determine whether the event was of the type that would be considered a violent act. (See Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500] [WCJ's credibility determination given great weight because the WCJ has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses].)

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the injury from slipping and falling and being struck by a weedwhacker was not a violent act as defined by the statute and case law, applicant did not lose consciousness, continued working, and did not seek immediate treatment, thus not meeting the violent act threshold.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12416285 · 2022-08-01 · Salinas District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Labor Code Section 5412 provides that the date of injury in cumulative trauma cases is the date when first disability coincides with first knowledge that the disability was caused by work. As noted above, the first date of disability was in March 2019, when Applicant underwent surgery and was put on 4850 benefits. The evidence listed above shows that Applicant knew his disability was industrial, when he gave his employer his "Incident/Injury Report" on 5/7/19, listing 5/6/19 as the date of industrial injury; and his careful listing of his general work duties, as well as his testimony at trial, leave no doubt that he understood his industrial injury was caused by cumulative trauma.

  The date of injury was properly found to be 5/6/19, the last date of cumulative trauma, as the applicant had disability starting in March 2019 and knowledge of industrial cause by 5/7/19.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12672258 · 2022-06-28 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 2, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, sustained injury to his heart and circulatory system arising out of and in the course of his employment as a correctional sergeant during the period June 1987 through June 17, 2016, by defendant, County of Monterey, then permissibly self-insured for workers' compensation liability. The WCJ also found that the injury caused need of further medical treatment and permanent partial disability of 69%. Applicant contends in his petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not finding that the injury caused permanent partial disability of 83%. Defendant filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which she recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied. Subsequently, at our request the parties participated in a commissioners' settlement conference and agreed to resolve this matter by compromise and release.

  The WCJ found 69% permanent partial disability, applicant contended 83%, but parties settled by compromise and release.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2024623 · 2022-05-24 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of May 21, 2019, the Presiding Workers' Compensation Judge ("PWCJ") found that applicant, while employed as a human resources/payroll employee by Cardinale Automotive Group on July 11, 1995 (ADJ4652674, insurer Republic Indemnity Company) and on January 15, 1996 (ADJ2024623, insurer Allianz Insurance Company), sustained industrial injury to her right knee per the Amended Findings and Award of February 2, 2005, and that in ADJ2024623, applicant sustained industrial injury to her left knee, psyche and complex regional pain syndrome ("CRPS"), causing permanent disability of 100% under the 1978 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities. In his Opinion on Decision, the PWCJ also found that "apportionment [of permanent disability] is 100% to the injury of January 5, 1996 in ADJ2024623MF based upon the opinion of Dr. Brose [pain specialist]," and that "[a]lthough the issue of [Labor Code section 3208.3(d)] is largely moot for permanent disability purposes...applicant did sustain a compensable psychiatric injury based [on her] credible testimony that she worked for over six months."1

  The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the diagnosis of CRPS and causation by the 01/05/96 injury, but rescinded and deferred the permanent disability finding in ADJ2024623 for further development due to insufficient evidence on permanent disability rating and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11994125 · 2022-04-18 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 2, 2022, 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 low back, left knee, and left ankle, and that the injury caused 52% permanent disability.

  The Board found substantial evidence in QME Dr. Cremata's well-reasoned reports and deposition supporting the addition of impairment factors rather than combining them, resulting in a 59% permanent disability rating.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10941537 · 2022-01-13 · Salinas District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6industrial injury and how and why the injury is responsible for the percentage of the disability, as assigned. Further, if a physician concludes that a portion of an employee's disability is caused by a pre-existing condition, the physician must explain the nature of the pre-existing condition, how and why it is causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, and how and why it is responsible for the portion of the disability as assigned by the physician. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Again, having reviewed all of Dr. Gagnon's reports, we see that he stated his opinions as to what percentage of applicant's disability was caused by the various injuries, but in none of the reports does he explain the basis for his opinions. Thus, the reports do not comply with the requirements stated in Escobedo, supra, and they do not constitute substantial evidence as to the issue of apportionment.

  Dr. Gagnon's apportionment opinions lack explanation and do not constitute substantial evidence; issue deferred for further development

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13007518 · 2021-10-08 · Salinas District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The equally critical issue raised by Petitioner is when Applicant first suffered disability from the cumulative injury. Petitioner argues that Applicant first suffered disability when she self-imposed a restriction from heavy lifting. The record does not show when she first did so, but it does not matter: for purposes of satisfying the second prong of 5412, there must be evidence of either temporary or permanent disability. [Chavira v. WCAB (1991) 56 CCC 631] It is undisputed that Applicant was never taken off work by a physician for a temporary disability caused by this injury. Permanent disability was not found until Dr. Gagnon's evaluation on 1/22/2021. It was only then that there was concurrence of knowledge and disability, thus establishing the 1/22/2021 date of injury under Labor Sec. 5412.

  The date of injury was established as 1/22/2021 when knowledge of industrial causation and disability concurred, based on Dr. Gagnon's evaluation and Labor Code 5412 requirements.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ3543979 · 2021-03-18 · Salinas District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Hartnell Packing Inc., by and through its insurer, Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company/Liberty Mutual, seeks reconsideration of the December 28, 2020 Findings, Award and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained five industrial injuries, specific and cumulative, to his bilateral shoulders, back, psyche, heart/cardiovascular, sleep and internal while employed as a dock supervisor on July 5, 1996, December 1, 2001, and cumulatively over the periods ending December 31, 2002, October 14, 2003, and June 9, 2005, resulting in permanent total disability. The WCJ determined that though applicant sustained five separate injuries, he was entitled to a single joint award of permanent total disability in the absence of substantial medical evidence to apportion disability between the dates of injury.

  Defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to apportion disability among multiple industrial injuries, and substantial evidence supports applicant's 100% permanent total disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9758394 · 2026-02-13 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration1, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

  The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement while the matter was pending on reconsideration.

  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.

• SPRENKLE, GEORGARIOU & DILLES
• SPRENKLE, GEORGARIOU & DILLES, LLP
• SPRENKLE GEORGARIOU
• SPRENKLE & GEORGARIOU
• SPRENKLE & GEORGARIOU & DILLES, LLP
• Sprenkle, Georgariou & Dilles, LLP
• SPRENKLE, GEORGARIOU &DILLES, LLP
• SPRENKLE GEORGARIOU & DILLES LLP
• Sprenkle, Georgariou & Dilles
• SPRENKLE GEORGARIOU & DILLES
• SPRENKLE & GEORGARIOU, LLP
• Sprenkle & Georgariou

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.