Gale Sutow & Associates

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 6
• Los Angeles 5
• Santa Ana 2
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• Fresno 1
• Long Beach 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• San Bernardino 1
• San Diego 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.

• 11 for the defense
• 5 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 19 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.

• ADJ12308686 · 2026-06-11 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In the present case, applicant designated Casa Colina rather than any individual physician as her primary treating physician. This designation violates AD Rule 9785(a)(1), which defines the primary treating physician as an actual physician and not a facility or other entity.

  Applicant designated a facility, not an individual physician, as primary treating physician, contrary to regulations; defendant provided access to three neurologists within the MPN, meeting statutory and regulatory requirements for access to care; applicant did not meet burden to show neglect or refusal to provide care.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16659537 · 2026-03-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Once Great Northern was dismissed, it no longer had standing as an employee, dependent, defendant, or interpreter to file a petition for costs. Consequently, Great Northern's petition for costs was dismissed by operation of law. No subsequent filing cured this defect, and all the petitions for costs filed by Great Northern remain dismissed.

  The Appeals Board held that once the defendant was dismissed, it no longer had standing to file a petition for costs, and the petition was dismissed by operation of law.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ19199519 · 2025-02-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2While a WCJ is empowered to join additional parties necessary for the full adjudication of the case at any time, [Labor Code § 5307.5(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10380] the California Self-Insurers' Security Fund, much like the California Insurance Guarantee Association, rather than functioning as a party defendant separate and distinct from the exiting insolvent self-insured employer, steps in the shoes of that employer and assumes its liability, thereby negating the judicial requirement of a formal joinder as a party defendant. In addition, to require its joinder in every case involving a liquidated self-insured employer places an exceptional burden on already overwhelmed limited judicial resources and frustrates its essentially constitutional purpose of providing expeditious delivery and resolution of litigated workers' compensation cases.

  SISF steps into the shoes of the insolvent self-insured employer and need not be formally joined as a separate party defendant; denial of joinder was a non-final order and due process required a hearing or notice before denial.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10452116 · 2024-10-07 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3We agree with the WCJ that the opinions of Thomas Curtis, M.D., Judith Schwafel, Ph.D., and Gayle Windman, Ph.D., are substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied in finding applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by the industrial injury and thus compensable. It is well-established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with other medical opinions. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].) In order to constitute substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability and it must set forth the reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604, 621.) A medical opinion is not substantial evidence when based on incorrect facts, history or legal theory, or surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess. (Place v. Workers' Comp Appeals Bd. (Place) (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (Escobedo) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found the reports and deposition testimony of Drs. Curtis, Schwafel, and Windman constitute substantial medical evidence establishing compensability of the psychiatric injury as predominantly caused by employment events, rejecting Dr. Cohen's contrary apportionment opinion as vague and unsupported.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16268064 · 2023-11-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4In the April 24, 2023 Order granting applicant's Petition for additional QME panels, the WCJ merely states: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that The DIR Medical Unit shall issue an additional panels QME List in the area of Internal Medicine (MMM) and Psychiatry (MPD.)" The WCJ does not discuss her reasoning for her decision. Additionally, the Order issued without a hearing, no minutes were filed, no testimony was taken, and the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence she relied on in making her decision.

  The WCJ issued an order granting additional QME panels without holding a hearing, creating a record, or providing a summary of the evidence relied upon, as required by law. The Appeals Board found this was improper and rescinded the order, remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8068969 · 2023-08-29 · Santa Ana District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America (Petitioner) seeks reconsideration of the June 14, 2023 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a server from June 19, 2002 to May 1, 2011, sustained industrial injury to cervical and lumbar spine, psyche, right shoulder, bilateral wrists, left shoulder, mid back, headache and "multiple." The WCJ found that applicant sustained but one cumulative injury, and that the date of injury pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5412 was 2011. Accordingly, the WCJ determined that section 5405 did not bar compensation, and that the period of liability under section 5500.5 commenced in 2010.

  The WCJ and the Board found that the applicant did not sustain compensable disability or acquire requisite knowledge of work-related cumulative injury until 2011, despite earlier medical treatment in 2008. The application was timely filed within one year of the 2011 date of injury, so compensation is not barred.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10812022 · 2022-07-08 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7However, under sections 3600.5 and 5705, jurisdiction flows from the formation of a contract of hire. "Where the duty to pay compensation is contractual, as under the optional acts, the rights of the injured party, wherever the injury is received, may, according to recognized principles, be controlled by the law of the place of contract. However, the California act is compulsory and it is now settled that the right to, and the liability for, compensation established by it are not founded upon contract but are statutory rights and duties arising from the employer- employee relationship and are imposed by the law as incidents to that status. (Alaska Packers Assoc. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Palma) (1934) 1 Cal.2d 250, 256 [1934 Cal. LEXIS 358].) After a careful review of the evidence, we are not persuaded that the question of applicant's employment and, by extension, jurisdiction over the injuries alleged to have arisen out of and in the course of that employment, is adequately addressed in the record of proceedings.

  The record was found inadequate to determine the nature of the employment relationship and jurisdiction; further development of the record was necessary to clarify the relationship between applicant, Balboa City Schools, and the paying entity WOFE, and to address California jurisdiction over the injury.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ6818414 · 2021-09-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (Mitsui) seeks reconsideration of the July 12, 2021 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution because applicant's Labor Code section 5412 date of injury was after his last date of employment and Mitsui insured applicant's employer during the last year of industrial exposure.1 The arbitrator found that "applicant's date of cumulative trauma, as defined by the provisions of Labor Code § 5500.5 and § 5412, to be June 16, 2007 through June 16, 2008." The arbitrator denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution.

  The Board found that the applicant's date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 was June 2, 2009, after the last date of injurious exposure, and denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution because Mitsui insured the employer during the last year of injurious exposure.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11226393 · 2021-07-20 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Ruling on Evidence, Findings of Fact and Order of April 26, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his neck, arms, upper extremities, back and shoulders while employed as a bus driver on September 5, 2017. The WCJ thus issued an order that applicant take nothing by way of his workers' compensation claim. In finding that applicant did not sustain compensable industrial injury, the WCJ found that applicant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained industrial injury, given that the WCJ did not find applicant's testimony or the history given to panel qualified medical evaluator physical medical specialist Katherine Robb-Ramirez, M.D. to be credible, and Dr. Robb-Ramirez opined that applicant did not sustain compensable industrial injury. Independently, the WCJ found that applicant's claim was barred by the post-termination provisions of Labor Code section 3600(a)(10), finding that applicant did not report his injury until after he was given notice of termination.

  Applicant did not present substantial medical evidence that the September 5, 2017 accident caused industrial injury, and the WCJ did not find applicant credible, so the claim was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14257977 · 2026-06-09 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

  Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as premature and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside and create a record.

  The petition was dismissed as premature because the WCJ had not yet created a record regarding applicant's understanding of the settlement; the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ19844359 · 2026-03-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, the order taking the matter off calendar and findings regarding the petition for change of venue were pre-trial interlocutory orders that did not determine any substantive right or liability and did not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, the order and the findings in the Minutes of Hearing are not "final" decisions. We will, therefore, dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and treat applicant's Petition as a Petition for Removal.

  The order was interlocutory and not a final order; applicant showed significant prejudice and irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and the record was inadequate regarding the venue change request.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ19204463 · 2025-03-07 · Van Nuys 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.

  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.

• GALE SUTOW & ASSOCIATES
• GALE, SUTOW & ASSOCIATES
• Gale Sutow & Associates
• GALE, SUTOW AND ASSOCIATES, APC
• GALE SUTOW AND ASSOCIATES
• GALE SUTOW & ASSOCITES

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.