California WCABLaw firm
The Nielsen Firm
The Nielsen Firm is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. They were heard most often at Bakersfield, then Fresno.
- Decisions
- 9
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 0
- District offices
- 5
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
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 9 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.
- ADJ19013889 · 2025-02-07 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, the Petition for Reconsideration seeks an increase in attorney fees but is not accompanied by proof of service on applicant of notice of applicant's attorney's adverse interest and of applicant's right to seek independent counsel. Therefore, the Petition is subject to dismissal.
The petition was dismissed because it was not accompanied by proof of service of notice of attorney's adverse interest and right to independent counsel as required by WCAB Rule 10842, and the Appeals Board timely acted on the petition within 60 days as required by Labor Code section 5909.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ12590679 · 2024-05-06 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ's February 23, 2024, Order Dismissing Case is a final Order. The WCJ may issue a Notice of Intention (NIT) for any proper purpose. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (a).) A proper purpose includes, but is not limited to, (1) Allowing, disallowing or dismissing a lien; (2) Granting, denying or dismissing a petition; (3) Sanctioning a party; (4) Submitting the matter on the record; or (5) Dismissing an application. (Id.) Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10832 (c), if an objection is filed within the time provided, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, in its discretion may: (1) Sustain the objection; (2) Issue an order consistent with the notice of intention together with an opinion on decision; or set the matter for hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (c).) Unless a case is activated for hearing within one year after filing of the Application for Adjudication of Claim or the entry of an order taking off calendar, the case may be dismissed after notice and opportunity to be heard. Such dismissals may be entered at the request of an interested party or upon the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's own motion for lack of prosecution. (Cal. Code Regs. tit.
The WCJ improperly issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss after the case was activated for hearing, making the dismissal order void ab initio.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ13069105 · 2024-04-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In my 11/1/22 Findings and Order, as noted above, I found good cause to set aside settlements in all four of the cases that had been presented to me as a unified "package" on 5/23/19. Accordingly, I ordered that the two stipulated awards in ADJ7597612 and ADJ10240855 each be rescinded, as well as the joint OACR in ADJ9551033 and ADJ6995603.
The WCJ found good cause to set aside the settlements based on procedural irregularities and undue influence, which the defendant did not substantially challenge on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ13756193 · 2024-04-05 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Here, on February 18, 2022, the WCJ dismissed applicant's case without a hearing, without creating a record, and without issuing an opinion on decision.
The WCJ dismissed the case without a hearing, without creating a record, and without issuing an opinion on decision, violating due process and statutory requirements.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ16124226 · 2023-11-01 · Bakersfield 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 the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ7858609 · 2023-07-17 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The WCAB panel adopted the WCJ's report which found that the Petition for Reconsideration was without merit and denied it.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12785180 · 2022-04-18 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Applicant has raised the issue of whether he is actively treating for his industrial injuries, averring treatment as recently as December, 2021. (Petition, at 1:26.) This argument raises substantive due process concerns arising out of applicant's possible active involvement in his case. Additionally, applicant's counsel has stated in verified pleadings that they did not receive the "Notice of Intent to Dismiss from the WCAB." (Id. at 1:24.) This argument raises procedural due process concerns, as to whether the required notice of a dismissal was received by applicant.
Due process concerns regarding applicant's ongoing treatment and non-receipt of notice justified granting reconsideration and rescinding dismissal.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ12129597 · 2021-04-20 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition for Removal, defendant's answer 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 applicant's arguments in the WCJ's report and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny removal.
The petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
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.
- THE NIELSEN FIRM
- THE NIELSEN LAW FIRM
- The Nielsen Firm
- NIELSEN 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.