Stratman & Williams-abrego

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Liens1
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 2
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Oakland 1
• San Jose 1
• Stockton 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.

• 3 for the applicant
• 3 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

• ADJ number not stated · 2024-08-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence in the existing record to find that lien claimant did rebut the presumption "affecting the burden of proof" in section 139.21(g) that her lien claims "and all underlying bills for service and claims for compensation asserted therein, [arose] from the conduct subjecting the physician, practitioner, or provider to suspension..." (Lab. Code, § 139.21(g).)

  The Appeals Board found that lien claimant rebutted the presumption under Labor Code section 139.21(g) because the fraudulent conduct for which she was convicted occurred in 2006, before she began treating workers' compensation patients in 2009, so the liens did not arise from the conduct subjecting her to suspension.

• ADJ10380421 · 2024-02-29 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, defendant has not met its burden of proving that the employee knew or should have known his disability was caused by his employment. (Johnson, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 471.) We will therefore rescind the F&O and substitute new findings deferring the issue of the date of injury per section 5412. Moreover, given our conclusion that applicant did not possess the knowledge required under section 5412 prior to July 28, 2017, and because applicant commenced proceedings for the collection of benefits less than one year later on November 3, 2017, we will find that compensation is not barred by section 5405. Because the underlying decision did not reach the issue of injury arising out of and in the course of employment, we will defer the issue. Finally, given that no party has challenged the WCJ's determinations regarding the claimed specific dates of injury, we will find that applicant did not sustain a specific injury to his low back on January 30, 2016 or on February 1, 2016.

  Applicant did not have the knowledge required under section 5412 prior to July 28, 2017, and commenced proceedings less than one year later, so compensation is not barred by section 5405.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2024-11-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The insurance carriers in this consolidated matter seek reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) on August 30, 2024 (2024 Decision), which incorporated the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued by the Appeals Board on April 6, 2020 (2020 Decision). We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and although newly aggrieved by the 2024 Decision, the carriers raise no contentions not previously raised and addressed in the 2024 Decision or 2020 Decision. (See eg., 2020 Decision, pp. 22-26; 2024 Decision, pp. 6-7.)

  The petition for reconsideration was denied because the carriers raised no new contentions beyond those already addressed in prior decisions, and the Appeals Board acted timely under Labor Code section 5909.

• ADJ10067067 · 2021-12-01 · Marina del Rey 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if a final adverse decision issued.

  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.

• HARTSUYKER STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO
• Stratman & Williams-Abrego
• STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO
• SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS-ABREGO
• Stratman Williams Abrego
• WILLIAMS ABREGO

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.