California WCABLaw firm

Dilles Law Group, PC

Dilles Law Group, PC is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2024–2026. The disputes run to Statute of limitations (2), Temporary disability (2) and Substantial evidence / credibility (1). They were heard most often at Salinas, then Fresno. The firm it meets most often is Chernow, Pine and Williams (1).

Decisions: 8
Years: 2024–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 21 of 21 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

Salinas 7
Fresno 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.

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

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ11850265 · 2026-04-28 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Defendant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Reconsideration from the Findings & Award of 11/09/2021, listing the usual statutory grounds. The issue is whether QME Dr. Stone's opinion, that the neck and upper extremity impairments should be combined with the lower extremity impairments by simple addition, qualifies as substantial medical evidence. I found that Dr. Stone's opinion in this regard did so qualify. The Petition for Reconsideration is without merit and should be denied.
Dr. Stone's opinion that the neck and upper extremity impairments should be combined with the lower extremity impairments by simple addition rather than the Combined Values Chart (CVC) is supported as substantial evidence, leading to a 59% permanent disability rating rather than 51%.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11035143 · 2026-01-27 · Salinas District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March 3, 2022 Order Rescinding Findings of Fact, Award, Orders and Opinion on Decision and Amended Findings of Fact, Award, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&A), wherein the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that in Case No. ADJ7555655,1 applicant while employed as a Correctional Officer during the cumulative injury period ending November 23, 2010, sustained industrial injury to his bilateral knees and in the form of coronary artery disease, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, and tinnitus. The WCJ further found in Case No. ADJ11035143 that applicant, while employed as a Correctional Officer during the period ending December 29, 2012, sustained cumulative injury in the form of coronary artery disease and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The WCJ found in relevant part that the claim for death benefits in ADJ11035143 was untimely because it was filed more than 240 weeks from the date of injury.
The WCJ found the date of injury under section 5412 was December 29, 2012, and that the claim for death benefits filed on August 21, 2017 was untimely because it was filed more than 240 weeks from the date of injury, consistent with section 5406(b). The Board affirmed this finding, rejecting the applicant's argument that the date of injury was May 15, 2015.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ4514112 · 2025-03-25 · Salinas District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the amended "Findings of Fact" (Findings) issued on December 27, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant failed to meet the threshold for obtaining Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits because applicant's subsequent industrial disability caused 100% permanent total disability without apportionment.
The WCJ and Appeals Board found that the applicant's subsequent industrial injury caused 100% permanent total disability without apportionment, and the apportionment opinions of medical evaluators did not constitute substantial medical evidence due to lack of explanation and reasoning, thus the applicant did not meet the threshold for SIBTF benefits under Labor Code section 4751.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10849328 · 2024-08-01 · Salinas District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant's Petition to Reopen was timely filed; that based on the determination provided in a report written by PQME Dr. Stone (PQME) an MRI of applicant's right shoulder is necessary, as well as a determination regarding further disability to the knees; that applicant shall be allowed to assert a claim for psychological injury within her Petition to Reopen, based on psychological symptoms reported by the PQME in his first report; and, that based on the PQME's determinations and request for an additional PQME in psychology to evaluate applicant, the parties should proceed to agree on an Agreed Medical Evaluator, or to request an additional QME, to evaluate applicant's psychological complaints, and to assess the date of onset, causation, and need for treatment. The WCJ ordered that: "the parties proceed with obtaining the MRI of the right shoulder as requested by PQME Dr. Stone and that the parties proceed with selection of either an AME, or request for an additional QME panel in the specialty of psychology to address the Applicant's symptoms, need for treatment and determine causation and the date this condition arose, as requested by PQME Dr. Stone."
The WCJ found the Petition to Reopen was timely filed, a threshold jurisdictional issue, making the decision final and subject to reconsideration rather than removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14723091 · 2024-07-08 · Fresno District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) of April 22, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that Dr. Klassen's medical reporting constituted substantial evidence. Applicant contends that Dr. Klassen's reporting did not constitute substantial medical evidence.
The Appeals Board found it unclear whether Dr. Klassen's reports constitute substantial evidence and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12852505 · 2026-06-25 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on January 12, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ's analysis that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, and that good cause to bifurcate the issue was not presented.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11748300 · 2026-05-22 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant SIBTF seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) previously served as defense counsel in this matter.
The petition was dismissed as moot because the WCJ recused herself and the matter was reassigned.
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.

DILLES LAW GROUP
Dilles Law Group, PC
THE DILLES LAW GROUP
Dilles Law Group
DILLES LAW FIRM
DILLES LAW
Dilles 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 →

Dilles Law Group, PC

Decisions

Years

2024–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

2 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ11850265 · 2026-04-28 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Defendant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Reconsideration from the Findings & Award of 11/09/2021, listing the usual statutory grounds. The issue is whether QME Dr. Stone's opinion, that the neck and upper extremity impairments should be combined with the lower extremity impairments by simple addition, qualifies as substantial medical evidence. I found that Dr. Stone's opinion in this regard did so qualify. The Petition for Reconsideration is without merit and should be denied.

Dr. Stone's opinion that the neck and upper extremity impairments should be combined with the lower extremity impairments by simple addition rather than the Combined Values Chart (CVC) is supported as substantial evidence, leading to a 59% permanent disability rating rather than 51%.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11035143 · 2026-01-27 · Salinas District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March 3, 2022 Order Rescinding Findings of Fact, Award, Orders and Opinion on Decision and Amended Findings of Fact, Award, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&A), wherein the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that in Case No. ADJ7555655,1 applicant while employed as a Correctional Officer during the cumulative injury period ending November 23, 2010, sustained industrial injury to his bilateral knees and in the form of coronary artery disease, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, and tinnitus. The WCJ further found in Case No. ADJ11035143 that applicant, while employed as a Correctional Officer during the period ending December 29, 2012, sustained cumulative injury in the form of coronary artery disease and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The WCJ found in relevant part that the claim for death benefits in ADJ11035143 was untimely because it was filed more than 240 weeks from the date of injury.

The WCJ found the date of injury under section 5412 was December 29, 2012, and that the claim for death benefits filed on August 21, 2017 was untimely because it was filed more than 240 weeks from the date of injury, consistent with section 5406(b). The Board affirmed this finding, rejecting the applicant's argument that the date of injury was May 15, 2015.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ4514112 · 2025-03-25 · Salinas District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the amended "Findings of Fact" (Findings) issued on December 27, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant failed to meet the threshold for obtaining Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits because applicant's subsequent industrial disability caused 100% permanent total disability without apportionment.

The WCJ and Appeals Board found that the applicant's subsequent industrial injury caused 100% permanent total disability without apportionment, and the apportionment opinions of medical evaluators did not constitute substantial medical evidence due to lack of explanation and reasoning, thus the applicant did not meet the threshold for SIBTF benefits under Labor Code section 4751.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10849328 · 2024-08-01 · Salinas District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant's Petition to Reopen was timely filed; that based on the determination provided in a report written by PQME Dr. Stone (PQME) an MRI of applicant's right shoulder is necessary, as well as a determination regarding further disability to the knees; that applicant shall be allowed to assert a claim for psychological injury within her Petition to Reopen, based on psychological symptoms reported by the PQME in his first report; and, that based on the PQME's determinations and request for an additional PQME in psychology to evaluate applicant, the parties should proceed to agree on an Agreed Medical Evaluator, or to request an additional QME, to evaluate applicant's psychological complaints, and to assess the date of onset, causation, and need for treatment. The WCJ ordered that: "the parties proceed with obtaining the MRI of the right shoulder as requested by PQME Dr. Stone and that the parties proceed with selection of either an AME, or request for an additional QME panel in the specialty of psychology to address the Applicant's symptoms, need for treatment and determine causation and the date this condition arose, as requested by PQME Dr. Stone."

The WCJ found the Petition to Reopen was timely filed, a threshold jurisdictional issue, making the decision final and subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14723091 · 2024-07-08 · Fresno District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) of April 22, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that Dr. Klassen's medical reporting constituted substantial evidence. Applicant contends that Dr. Klassen's reporting did not constitute substantial medical evidence.

The Appeals Board found it unclear whether Dr. Klassen's reports constitute substantial evidence and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12852505 · 2026-06-25 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on January 12, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ's analysis that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, and that good cause to bifurcate the issue was not presented.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11748300 · 2026-05-22 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant SIBTF seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) previously served as defense counsel in this matter.

The petition was dismissed as moot because the WCJ recused herself and the matter was reassigned.

Official decision · page 1 →