California WCABLaw firm
Stout, Kaufman, Holzman & Sprague, APLC
Stout, Kaufman, Holzman & Sprague, APLC is named in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. They were heard most often at Santa Barbara, then Goleta. The firm it meets most often is Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen (2).
- Decisions
- 5
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 0
- District offices
- 2
Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 12 of 12 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.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 5 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.
- ADJ10557068 · 2026-02-17 · Goleta District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.
The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the case is pending reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10773229 · 2024-03-14 · Santa Barbara 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.1
The Appeals Board denied the petition because 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 → - ADJ8555784 · 2023-12-22 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4resolve the issues discussed in our decision. Here, the essence of applicant's petition for removal is her complaint that the record should not be further developed because it will delay final resolution of her claim in ADJ9828972, resulting in significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Accordingly, we will evaluate the issues raised by applicant's petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions, i.e., significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and that reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ9445557 · 2021-08-10 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On January 14, 2021, defendant filed a Petition for Removal with respect to a December 31, 2020 Notice of Hearing setting this matter for trial before workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) Scott Seiden. Defendant also sought to disqualify WCJ Seiden. This matter was tried before WCJ Seiden on February 24, 2021 and a Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued on May 24, 2021. No party challenged the F&A on reconsideration. As a result, defendant's Petition for Removal and Disqualification has been rendered moot and will be dismissed.
The petition was rendered moot by the trial and Findings of Fact and Award issued without challenge 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.
- Stout, Kaufman, Holzman & Sprague, APLC
- STOUT, KAUFMAN, HOLZMAN & SPRAGUE, APLC
- STOUT KAUFMAN HOLZMAN & SPRAGUE, APLC
- STOUT, KAUFMAN, HOLZMAN & SPRAGUE, PC
- STOUT & KAUFMAN
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.