California WCABLaw firm

Stander Ruebens Thomas Kinsey

Stander Ruebens Thomas Kinsey is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2025. The disputes run to Apportionment (1), Jurisdiction / venue (1) and Statute of limitations (1). They were heard most often at San Francisco, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Gimbel Law Firm (1).

Decisions: 8
Years: 2023–2025
Issues disputed: 3
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

4 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

San Francisco 2
Anaheim 1
Long Beach 1
Oakland 1
Riverside 1
Sacramento 1
Van Nuys 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
2 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ19245370 · 2025-03-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Here, the WCJ summarily issued an order denying the petition for joinder without issuing a notice of intent and without conducting a hearing on the petition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.) No record supports the order denying joinder; accordingly, due process requires that we grant removal, rescind the order denying joinder, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
The WCJ denied SISF's petition for joinder, reasoning that SISF steps into the shoes of the insolvent self-insured employer and does not require formal joinder. The WCAB found that due process was not provided because no hearing or notice of intent was issued, and no record supported the denial. The WCAB rescinded the order and remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ17195883 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3It is undisputed that "since no benefits have been provided to applicant, the only applicable limitation is one year from the May 4, 2021 claimed date of the injury." (F&O, Opinion on Decision, p. 10 citing Lab. Code, § 5405(a).) Applicant filed his claim on January 18, 2023. (Application for Adjudication, January 18, 2023.) Therefore, applicant's claim was filed more than one year from the May 4, 2021 claimed date of injury.
The WCJ's decision to bar the claim based on the statute of limitations was not supported by substantial evidence because the defendant failed to provide sufficient proof that the DWC-1 claim form and notice were properly mailed and received by the applicant. New evidence showed returned mail to the applicant's address, undermining the presumption of proper service.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ9464655 · 2024-08-22 · Anaheim District OfficeApportionmentmixed
Determinative passage · p.1We issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration on Board Motion in this matter on February 18, 2021 (February Order) to study further the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration. (Lab. Code, § 5900(b).) This is our Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration.
The board corrected the prior decision to accurately reflect the comparative negligence percentages of the parties involved, including the applicant, third-party truck driver, and defendant employer, and clarified the method for calculating third-party credit based on total damages rather than settlement amount, leading to a mixed outcome with deferred credit determination.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3117080 · 2025-10-27 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Here, applicant's Petition for Removal describes itself as an "objection to DOR ADJ3117080 QME Hearing dated August 5, 2025." Both the Minute Order and the stipulation and Order that issued on August 5, 2025 were at the joint request and/or stipulation of the parties. Applicant does not state what substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if either the Minute Order or the Stipulation and Order that she initially agreed to remain undisturbed. Thus, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Once the parties proceed to trial, they will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence. The trial WCJ can then consider the evidence and the legal arguments raised by the parties and determine how best to proceed.
Applicant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; orders were by joint request or stipulation.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ9042051 · 2025-09-22 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7The Petition to Disqualify fails to set forth facts that establish the WCJ has formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action or shown the existence of a state of mind evincing enmity or bias against a party. The mere issuance of an order by the WCJ, even if erroneous, does not support disqualification. The Petition does not meet the requirements to establish disqualification pursuant to section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.
The petition for disqualification failed to set forth facts establishing bias or an unqualified opinion by the WCJ. The mere issuance of an order, even if erroneous, does not support disqualification. The petition was denied.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ17961848 · 2025-05-20 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on April 3, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so the Board dismissed it.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11209032 · 2024-03-18 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show 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 →
ADJ9784641 · 2023-09-20 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.5As discussed above, the trial record does not contain the evidence necessary for the WCJ or the Appeals Board to properly adjudicate and determine the issues submitted by the parties, including the threshold issues of injury AOAE/COE and parts of body injured. Thus, it is necessary that the trial record be further developed.
The trial record did not contain substantial evidence necessary to adjudicate the threshold issues of injury AOE/COE and parts of body injured, nor evidence regarding notice, claim forms, or proper medical-legal procedures. Further development of the record is required.
Official decision · page 5 →

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.

THOMAS KINSEY, LLP
STANDER, RUEBENS, THOMAS & KINSEY
Stander Ruebens Thomas Kinsey
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS KINSEY
Thomas Kinsey, LLP
THOMAS KINSEY 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.

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 Ruebens Thomas Kinsey

Decisions

Years

2023–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the defense

2 for the applicant

2 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.

ADJ19245370 · 2025-03-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Here, the WCJ summarily issued an order denying the petition for joinder without issuing a notice of intent and without conducting a hearing on the petition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.) No record supports the order denying joinder; accordingly, due process requires that we grant removal, rescind the order denying joinder, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

The WCJ denied SISF's petition for joinder, reasoning that SISF steps into the shoes of the insolvent self-insured employer and does not require formal joinder. The WCAB found that due process was not provided because no hearing or notice of intent was issued, and no record supported the denial. The WCAB rescinded the order and remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ17195883 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3It is undisputed that "since no benefits have been provided to applicant, the only applicable limitation is one year from the May 4, 2021 claimed date of the injury." (F&O, Opinion on Decision, p. 10 citing Lab. Code, § 5405(a).) Applicant filed his claim on January 18, 2023. (Application for Adjudication, January 18, 2023.) Therefore, applicant's claim was filed more than one year from the May 4, 2021 claimed date of injury.

The WCJ's decision to bar the claim based on the statute of limitations was not supported by substantial evidence because the defendant failed to provide sufficient proof that the DWC-1 claim form and notice were properly mailed and received by the applicant. New evidence showed returned mail to the applicant's address, undermining the presumption of proper service.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ9464655 · 2024-08-22 · Anaheim District OfficeApportionmentmixed

Determinative passage · p.1We issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration on Board Motion in this matter on February 18, 2021 (February Order) to study further the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration. (Lab. Code, § 5900(b).) This is our Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration.

The board corrected the prior decision to accurately reflect the comparative negligence percentages of the parties involved, including the applicant, third-party truck driver, and defendant employer, and clarified the method for calculating third-party credit based on total damages rather than settlement amount, leading to a mixed outcome with deferred credit determination.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3117080 · 2025-10-27 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Here, applicant's Petition for Removal describes itself as an "objection to DOR ADJ3117080 QME Hearing dated August 5, 2025." Both the Minute Order and the stipulation and Order that issued on August 5, 2025 were at the joint request and/or stipulation of the parties. Applicant does not state what substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if either the Minute Order or the Stipulation and Order that she initially agreed to remain undisturbed. Thus, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Once the parties proceed to trial, they will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence. The trial WCJ can then consider the evidence and the legal arguments raised by the parties and determine how best to proceed.

Applicant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; orders were by joint request or stipulation.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ9042051 · 2025-09-22 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7The Petition to Disqualify fails to set forth facts that establish the WCJ has formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action or shown the existence of a state of mind evincing enmity or bias against a party. The mere issuance of an order by the WCJ, even if erroneous, does not support disqualification. The Petition does not meet the requirements to establish disqualification pursuant to section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.

The petition for disqualification failed to set forth facts establishing bias or an unqualified opinion by the WCJ. The mere issuance of an order, even if erroneous, does not support disqualification. The petition was denied.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ17961848 · 2025-05-20 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on April 3, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so the Board dismissed it.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11209032 · 2024-03-18 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show 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 →

ADJ9784641 · 2023-09-20 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.5As discussed above, the trial record does not contain the evidence necessary for the WCJ or the Appeals Board to properly adjudicate and determine the issues submitted by the parties, including the threshold issues of injury AOAE/COE and parts of body injured. Thus, it is necessary that the trial record be further developed.

The trial record did not contain substantial evidence necessary to adjudicate the threshold issues of injury AOE/COE and parts of body injured, nor evidence regarding notice, claim forms, or proper medical-legal procedures. Further development of the record is required.

Official decision · page 5 →