California WCABLaw firm
Wolff Walker Law Firm
Wolff Walker Law Firm is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes are Jurisdiction / venue (2). They were heard most often at Santa Barbara, then Oxnard. The firm it meets most often is Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, LLP (3).
- Decisions
- 7
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 1
- District offices
- 4
Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 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.
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 6 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.
- ADJ13970706 · 2022-02-04 · Santa Barbara District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Therefore, under the rare circumstances presented in this case, we conclude that defendant was not required to move for automatic reassignment at or prior to the March 25, 2021 expedited hearing in order to preserve the right to seek reassignment of the September 9, 2021 expedited hearing. Accordingly, the August 24, 2021 Petition for Automatic Reassignment should have been granted, and we will grant the Petition for Removal and return the matter to the trial level for reassignment to a new WCJ.2
Defendant did not receive proper notice of the March 25, 2021 expedited hearing, so the obligation to seek reassignment at that time was not triggered under Rule 10788. The hearing was taken off calendar without substantive proceedings, and defendant timely petitioned for reassignment upon receiving valid notice for the September 9, 2021 hearing.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ12791863 · 2021-02-09 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the Expedited Finding of Facts and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 24, 2020. By the F&O, the WCJ found that the utilization review (UR) determination was untimely and the WCJ has jurisdiction to act. The WCJ also appointed a regular physician per Labor Code1 section 5701 to perform a UR determination of whether a right hip arthroplasty is reasonable and necessary. (Lab. Code, § 5701.)
The WCJ found the October 6, 2020 UR decision untimely, giving the WCAB jurisdiction to act. However, the Appeals Board found the record incomplete without the RFAs and remanded for further proceedings to develop the record and address the timeliness and jurisdiction issues properly.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ18598754 · 2026-03-18 · Goleta District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1Thereafter on February 25, 2026, the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement. As the issue raised is now moot, we will dismiss the petition for removal.
The issue raised by the petition for removal became moot after the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12184079 · 2024-02-01 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, 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.
The WCAB panel found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and held reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ11451772 · 2023-09-15 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on July 18, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ9336170 · 2021-09-17 · Oxnard 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12791863 · 2021-08-10 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on April 1, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner before decision, so it was dismissed.
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.
- WOLFF WALKER LAW FIRM
- WOLFF WALKER LAW
- WOLFF-WALKER LAW FIRM
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.