California WCABLaw firm

Stander Reubens

Stander Reubens is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (2), Psyche AOE/COE (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Santa Ana, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Silberman and Lam (2).

Decisions: 8
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 7

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 8 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 Ana 2
Anaheim 1
Oakland 1
Sacramento 1
Salinas 1
San Jose 1
Santa Rosa 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.

4 for the defense
2 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

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.

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 →
ADJ10175606 · 2022-08-16 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant L. Brand, Inc./Victoria Secret (Defendant) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Orders of February 4, 2022, wherein it was found that, while employed as a retail manager during a cumulative period ending July 15, 2013, applicant sustained industrial injury to feet, right ankle, low back, right hip and right knee causing permanent total (100%) disability and the need for further medical treatment.
The WCAB found that the apportionment opinion of Dr. Wolfson was not substantial medical evidence because it lacked explanation of how pre-existing pathology contributed to permanent impairment, thus the applicant was entitled to an unapportioned award. The WCAB affirmed the finding of permanent total disability based on vocational evidence and applicant's credible testimony of unsuccessful return to work attempts.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9607300 · 2021-12-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.13We agree with defendant's contention that it is unclear what role Dr. Bone was playing in this matter when he prepared his 2020 reports at a time when was no longer evaluating applicant at defendant's request per section 4050 and before applicant purportedly designated him as her primary treating physician on August 3, 2020. (Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, December 31, 2020, p. 6.) Under these circumstances, we conclude that Dr. Bone's 2020 reporting may not be the sole evidentiary basis to support the award of temporary disability since he was not evaluating applicant as a treating physician, as a medical-legal evaluator or as a regular physician per section 5701. In the absence of Dr. Bone's 2020 reporting, there is insufficient medical evidence in the current record to determine if applicant is entitled to temporary disability during the period in dispute.
The Appeals Board found that Dr. Bone's 2020 reports could not be the sole basis for the award of temporary disability because he was not acting as a treating physician, medical-legal evaluator, or regular physician under section 5701 at that time, resulting in insufficient medical evidence to support the award. Therefore, the December 11, 2020 Findings and Award was rescinded and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 13 →
ADJ10407856 · 2021-03-05 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venuemixed
Determinative passage · p.5For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the December 9, 2020 Findings and Order is AFFIRMED, EXCEPT Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7, 8 and the Order are AMENDED as follows:
The arbitrator found, and the WCAB affirmed as amended, that there was insufficient evidence of a valid limiting and restricting endorsement in the insurance policies covering the alleged cumulative trauma period. The WCAB clarified that the sole issue determined was insurance coverage and that rescission was not at issue.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ11896735 · 2025-02-18 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 17, 2024, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, February 15, 2025. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Tuesday, February 18, 2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)3 This decision is issued by or on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
The petition was dismissed as premature because the WCAB acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909 after the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 17, 2024, and the decision was issued on February 18, 2025, the next business day after the 60-day period.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ13262420 · 2024-03-19 · Oakland 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9607300 · 2022-03-02 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal in response to the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued by the Appeals Board on December 23, 2021. We received an answer from defendant. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the prior decision was not final and did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue. The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
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.

STANDER REUBENS
Stander Reubens

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 →

Stander Reubens

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the defense

2 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

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.

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 →

ADJ10175606 · 2022-08-16 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant L. Brand, Inc./Victoria Secret (Defendant) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Orders of February 4, 2022, wherein it was found that, while employed as a retail manager during a cumulative period ending July 15, 2013, applicant sustained industrial injury to feet, right ankle, low back, right hip and right knee causing permanent total (100%) disability and the need for further medical treatment.

The WCAB found that the apportionment opinion of Dr. Wolfson was not substantial medical evidence because it lacked explanation of how pre-existing pathology contributed to permanent impairment, thus the applicant was entitled to an unapportioned award. The WCAB affirmed the finding of permanent total disability based on vocational evidence and applicant's credible testimony of unsuccessful return to work attempts.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9607300 · 2021-12-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.13We agree with defendant's contention that it is unclear what role Dr. Bone was playing in this matter when he prepared his 2020 reports at a time when was no longer evaluating applicant at defendant's request per section 4050 and before applicant purportedly designated him as her primary treating physician on August 3, 2020. (Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, December 31, 2020, p. 6.) Under these circumstances, we conclude that Dr. Bone's 2020 reporting may not be the sole evidentiary basis to support the award of temporary disability since he was not evaluating applicant as a treating physician, as a medical-legal evaluator or as a regular physician per section 5701. In the absence of Dr. Bone's 2020 reporting, there is insufficient medical evidence in the current record to determine if applicant is entitled to temporary disability during the period in dispute.

The Appeals Board found that Dr. Bone's 2020 reports could not be the sole basis for the award of temporary disability because he was not acting as a treating physician, medical-legal evaluator, or regular physician under section 5701 at that time, resulting in insufficient medical evidence to support the award. Therefore, the December 11, 2020 Findings and Award was rescinded and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 13 →

ADJ10407856 · 2021-03-05 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venuemixed

Determinative passage · p.5For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the December 9, 2020 Findings and Order is AFFIRMED, EXCEPT Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7, 8 and the Order are AMENDED as follows:

The arbitrator found, and the WCAB affirmed as amended, that there was insufficient evidence of a valid limiting and restricting endorsement in the insurance policies covering the alleged cumulative trauma period. The WCAB clarified that the sole issue determined was insurance coverage and that rescission was not at issue.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ11896735 · 2025-02-18 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 17, 2024, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, February 15, 2025. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Tuesday, February 18, 2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)3 This decision is issued by or on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).

The petition was dismissed as premature because the WCAB acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909 after the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 17, 2024, and the decision was issued on February 18, 2025, the next business day after the 60-day period.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ13262420 · 2024-03-19 · Oakland 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9607300 · 2022-03-02 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal in response to the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued by the Appeals Board on December 23, 2021. We received an answer from defendant. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the prior decision was not final and did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue. The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 1 →