California WCABLaw firm

Kneisler & Schondel

Kneisler & Schondel is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (2), Apportionment (1) and QME/AME process (1). They were heard most often at Santa Rosa. The firm it meets most often is Bradford & Barthel (2).

Decisions: 6
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 5 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

1 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

Santa Rosa 6

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.

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

Counted over 4 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.

ADJ13705745 · 2026-03-19 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingnot_reached
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award issued April 10, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, bilateral shoulders, and upper extremities, as a machine feeder, while employed by Capabunga. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 71% after apportionment.
The defendant contended the record lacked substantial medical evidence to support the 71% permanent disability rating, but the WCJ found otherwise and the reconsideration was procedural, not on merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18006784 · 2023-10-30 · Santa Rosa District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5In the Joint F&A, the undersigned WCJ found that the applicant sustained injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine on August 14, 2020 and on a cumulative trauma basis through August 14, 2020. The undersigned WCJ awarded a 19% permanent disability (PD) rating for the specific August 14, 2020 injury after apportionment, and a 27% permanent disability (PD) rating for the CT through August 14, 2020 after apportionment along with an award for future medical care for the neck and cervical spine for both injuries.
The WCJ found substantial medical evidence supporting apportionment between the specific injury and cumulative trauma injury but found no substantial evidence to further apportion the cumulative trauma injury among multiple employers due to lack of employment records and testimony.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ11443278 · 2023-08-21 · Santa Rosa District OfficeQME/AME processremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Minute Orders (Orders) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 28, 2021, wherein the WCJ barred the report of orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Joseph McCoy, Jr., M.D., from being provided to replacement QME Michael D. Ciepiela, M.D., for his review, and ordered that the report from Dr. McCoy was "inadmissible for any purpose."
The WCJ's order barring the QME McCoy report from replacement QME Ciepiela was rescinded because the record was incomplete and the matter was returned for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12841348 · 2023-07-10 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed
Determinative passage · p.4and Category IV weakness in flexion strength using Almaraz/Guzman.... I am combining them [weakness and motion impairment] using the Almaraz/Guzman rule...." (Joint Exh. 2, p. 27.) Having reviewed his report, it is not clear what aspect of the Almaraz/Guzman analysis Dr. Wolfson was referring to, but it does not appear that he utilized the four-step analysis noted above. Absent that analysis, Dr. Wolfson's report does not constitute substantial evidence. (Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra.)
Dr. Wolfson's report did not constitute substantial evidence due to failure to perform the required four-step Almaraz/Guzman analysis; therefore, the permanent disability caused by the injury was deferred for further development.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ1545786 · 2026-03-30 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order Allowing Withdrawal of Attorney of Record (Order) dated October 27, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ ordered that applicant's attorneys, Matthew Schondel and the Law Office of Kneisler & Schondel, be relieved as attorney of record for applicant.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in dismissing applicant's attorney without proper service of the Notice of Intent and Order, and that applicant's objection to the Notice of Intent was timely and must be considered. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was granted, the order was rescinded, and the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13705745 · 2022-07-07 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Defendant, Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency, LLC on behalf of ProCentury Insurance Company, through their attorney of record, Louis Larres of Bradford Barthel, filed a timely, verified Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Findings and Award dated April 14, 2022.
The panel found that the defendant failed to timely communicate the Utilization Review denial to the applicant's attorney as required by Labor Code section 4610 and Administrative Director Rule 9792.9.l(e)(3). The petitioner's argument of substantial compliance and estoppel was rejected. The panel adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration.
Official decision · page 3 →

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.

KNEISLER & SCHONDEL
Kneisler & Schondel
Law Office of Kneisler & Schondel

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 →

Kneisler & Schondel

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

2 for the applicant

1 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 4 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.

ADJ13705745 · 2026-03-19 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingnot_reached

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award issued April 10, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, bilateral shoulders, and upper extremities, as a machine feeder, while employed by Capabunga. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 71% after apportionment.

The defendant contended the record lacked substantial medical evidence to support the 71% permanent disability rating, but the WCJ found otherwise and the reconsideration was procedural, not on merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18006784 · 2023-10-30 · Santa Rosa District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5In the Joint F&A, the undersigned WCJ found that the applicant sustained injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine on August 14, 2020 and on a cumulative trauma basis through August 14, 2020. The undersigned WCJ awarded a 19% permanent disability (PD) rating for the specific August 14, 2020 injury after apportionment, and a 27% permanent disability (PD) rating for the CT through August 14, 2020 after apportionment along with an award for future medical care for the neck and cervical spine for both injuries.

The WCJ found substantial medical evidence supporting apportionment between the specific injury and cumulative trauma injury but found no substantial evidence to further apportion the cumulative trauma injury among multiple employers due to lack of employment records and testimony.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ11443278 · 2023-08-21 · Santa Rosa District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Minute Orders (Orders) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 28, 2021, wherein the WCJ barred the report of orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Joseph McCoy, Jr., M.D., from being provided to replacement QME Michael D. Ciepiela, M.D., for his review, and ordered that the report from Dr. McCoy was "inadmissible for any purpose."

The WCJ's order barring the QME McCoy report from replacement QME Ciepiela was rescinded because the record was incomplete and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12841348 · 2023-07-10 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed

Determinative passage · p.4and Category IV weakness in flexion strength using Almaraz/Guzman.... I am combining them [weakness and motion impairment] using the Almaraz/Guzman rule...." (Joint Exh. 2, p. 27.) Having reviewed his report, it is not clear what aspect of the Almaraz/Guzman analysis Dr. Wolfson was referring to, but it does not appear that he utilized the four-step analysis noted above. Absent that analysis, Dr. Wolfson's report does not constitute substantial evidence. (Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra.)

Dr. Wolfson's report did not constitute substantial evidence due to failure to perform the required four-step Almaraz/Guzman analysis; therefore, the permanent disability caused by the injury was deferred for further development.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ1545786 · 2026-03-30 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order Allowing Withdrawal of Attorney of Record (Order) dated October 27, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ ordered that applicant's attorneys, Matthew Schondel and the Law Office of Kneisler & Schondel, be relieved as attorney of record for applicant.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in dismissing applicant's attorney without proper service of the Notice of Intent and Order, and that applicant's objection to the Notice of Intent was timely and must be considered. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was granted, the order was rescinded, and the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13705745 · 2022-07-07 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Defendant, Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency, LLC on behalf of ProCentury Insurance Company, through their attorney of record, Louis Larres of Bradford Barthel, filed a timely, verified Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Findings and Award dated April 14, 2022.

The panel found that the defendant failed to timely communicate the Utilization Review denial to the applicant's attorney as required by Labor Code section 4610 and Administrative Director Rule 9792.9.l(e)(3). The petitioner's argument of substantial compliance and estoppel was rejected. The panel adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration.

Official decision · page 3 →