California WCABLaw firm

Weltin, Streb & Weltin

Weltin, Streb & Weltin is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Permanent disability rating (2) and QME/AME process (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Santa Rosa. The firm it meets most often is Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (2).

Decisions: 8
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 7 of 7 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

Oakland 7
Santa Rosa 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 applicant
1 for the defense

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ16040226 · 2026-01-06 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Here, based upon our review of the evidentiary record, including the QME reports of Dr. McBride, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. McBride obtained a thorough history of the injury, and completed a comprehensive examination of applicant and review of applicable medical records. (Report, p. 7.) Further, his opinions are well-reasoned and not based upon surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. We remind defendant that although the onus is on applicant to provide substantial evidence of injury AOE/COE, the "burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1700-1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Further, once this burden has been met, the burden shifts to defendant to provide evidence in rebuttal. Although defendant references reporting by Dr. Candell, no real contradictory evidence has been presented herein. The record overwhelmingly supports a finding of industrial causation. Accordingly, we agree with the PWCJ that applicant has met her burden in establishing substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine with a continuing need for future medical treatment.
The Appeals Board found that applicant met her burden of proving injury AOE/COE based on substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. McBride, who provided well-reasoned opinions supported by medical history, examination, and records, and that defendant failed to present contradictory evidence sufficient to rebut this.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ10361114 · 2024-12-31 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Amended Findings, Award, and Orders with Opinion on Decision" (F&A) issued on August 20, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was 100% permanently totally disabled.
The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence on Combined Values Chart rebuttal was not substantial and that vocational expert opinions improperly included medical conclusions. The Board deferred the permanent disability issue for further development of the medical and vocational record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15505677 · 2024-12-30 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the August 12, 2021 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) found that applicant, while employed as an ironworker on October 8, 2018, sustained industrial injury to his neck, mid-back (thoracic spine) and lower back (lumbar spine). The WCA found that applicant successfully rebutted the scheduled rating under the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) and was permanently and totally disabled without apportionment.
The WCA's findings and the Appeals Board's review found substantial medical evidence supporting applicant's permanent and total disability based on non-feasibility for vocational rehabilitation, rejecting defendant's apportionment arguments due to lack of substantial evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16099603 · 2024-08-06 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Defendant acknowledges that the RFA was dated August 8, 2023. It also cites applicant's correspondence to the QME, on October 16, 2023, indicating that a surgical request by Dr. Schwartz was then pending. Then came Dr. Lockwood's report, dated November 17, 2023, and quoted above. It would appear that, even if defendant was not, during that period, in possession of the actual RFA, by all of those indications, defendant was on notice that the treating physician was recommending further surgery. Its general duty to "conduct a reasonable and timely investigation" with respect to applicant's entitlement to that medical treatment is rooted in California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 10109. It does not appear that this defendant undertook such an investigation. My conclusion after trial: "In sum, I find it reasonable to infer that December 13, 2023, was not the first date on which the request for authorization was conveyed to this defendant, and therefore that the UR decision was untimely."
The Board found that the request for authorization was conveyed to defendant before December 13, 2023, making the utilization review decision dated December 20, 2023 untimely.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ16010702 · 2023-11-15 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5The Report states that there is only one uncontradicted and unimpeached medical report from Dr. Miller dated June 3, 2022 which was presented at the August 17, 2022 expedited hearing. The June 3, 2022 report completed by Dr. Miller indicates that applicant is entitled to temporary total disability and should receive medical treatment. Based on Dr. Miller's report, applicant's condition at the time of Dr. Miller's examination on June 3, 2022 was that applicant was unable to perform her regular job duties.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10080187 · 2022-08-23 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5The basic allegation in [defendant's] Petition is that Dr. Ganzhorn's opinion on injury AOE/COE with respect to the heart and lungs is not substantial evidence because he did not sufficiently explain or provide a basis for his mechanism of injury theory, which is the Applicant gained a significant amount of weight post-injury as a compensable consequence of his accepted orthopedic injuries, which reduced and limited his physical activity level, and in turn contributed to the development of obesity, OSA, hyperventilation syndrome, and right sided heart failure obesity. (See Petition at p. 3.) It is true that Dr. Ganzhorn did not come around to this opinion until his deposition on March 26, 2021, (Joint 102 at pp. 21-22, when the light seemed to come as to that concept with questioning by Applicant's attorney Ryan Smith.
The WCJ found that the QME Dr. Ganzhorn's opinion, which changed to attribute the heart and lung injuries to compensable consequence of weight gain caused by reduced physical activity from accepted orthopedic injuries, was substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to heart and lungs.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ13463458 · 2021-02-08 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Order Denying Emergency Petition to Stay PQME1 Evaluation (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 8, 2020.2 By the Order, the WCJ denied defendant's Emergency Petition to Stay PQME Evaluation on December 19, 2020 Under CCR 10470.
The WCAB found the WCJ's denial of the emergency stay premature and procedurally improper, requiring further proceedings to address the specialty dispute with due process.
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.

WELTIN, STREB & WELTIN, LLP
WELTIN STREB & WELTIN
Weltin, Streb & Weltin

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 →

Weltin, Streb & Weltin

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

1 for the defense

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ16040226 · 2026-01-06 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Here, based upon our review of the evidentiary record, including the QME reports of Dr. McBride, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. McBride obtained a thorough history of the injury, and completed a comprehensive examination of applicant and review of applicable medical records. (Report, p. 7.) Further, his opinions are well-reasoned and not based upon surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. We remind defendant that although the onus is on applicant to provide substantial evidence of injury AOE/COE, the "burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1700-1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Further, once this burden has been met, the burden shifts to defendant to provide evidence in rebuttal. Although defendant references reporting by Dr. Candell, no real contradictory evidence has been presented herein. The record overwhelmingly supports a finding of industrial causation. Accordingly, we agree with the PWCJ that applicant has met her burden in establishing substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine with a continuing need for future medical treatment.

The Appeals Board found that applicant met her burden of proving injury AOE/COE based on substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. McBride, who provided well-reasoned opinions supported by medical history, examination, and records, and that defendant failed to present contradictory evidence sufficient to rebut this.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ10361114 · 2024-12-31 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Amended Findings, Award, and Orders with Opinion on Decision" (F&A) issued on August 20, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was 100% permanently totally disabled.

The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence on Combined Values Chart rebuttal was not substantial and that vocational expert opinions improperly included medical conclusions. The Board deferred the permanent disability issue for further development of the medical and vocational record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15505677 · 2024-12-30 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the August 12, 2021 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) found that applicant, while employed as an ironworker on October 8, 2018, sustained industrial injury to his neck, mid-back (thoracic spine) and lower back (lumbar spine). The WCA found that applicant successfully rebutted the scheduled rating under the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) and was permanently and totally disabled without apportionment.

The WCA's findings and the Appeals Board's review found substantial medical evidence supporting applicant's permanent and total disability based on non-feasibility for vocational rehabilitation, rejecting defendant's apportionment arguments due to lack of substantial evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16099603 · 2024-08-06 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Defendant acknowledges that the RFA was dated August 8, 2023. It also cites applicant's correspondence to the QME, on October 16, 2023, indicating that a surgical request by Dr. Schwartz was then pending. Then came Dr. Lockwood's report, dated November 17, 2023, and quoted above. It would appear that, even if defendant was not, during that period, in possession of the actual RFA, by all of those indications, defendant was on notice that the treating physician was recommending further surgery. Its general duty to "conduct a reasonable and timely investigation" with respect to applicant's entitlement to that medical treatment is rooted in California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 10109. It does not appear that this defendant undertook such an investigation. My conclusion after trial: "In sum, I find it reasonable to infer that December 13, 2023, was not the first date on which the request for authorization was conveyed to this defendant, and therefore that the UR decision was untimely."

The Board found that the request for authorization was conveyed to defendant before December 13, 2023, making the utilization review decision dated December 20, 2023 untimely.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ16010702 · 2023-11-15 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5The Report states that there is only one uncontradicted and unimpeached medical report from Dr. Miller dated June 3, 2022 which was presented at the August 17, 2022 expedited hearing. The June 3, 2022 report completed by Dr. Miller indicates that applicant is entitled to temporary total disability and should receive medical treatment. Based on Dr. Miller's report, applicant's condition at the time of Dr. Miller's examination on June 3, 2022 was that applicant was unable to perform her regular job duties.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10080187 · 2022-08-23 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5The basic allegation in [defendant's] Petition is that Dr. Ganzhorn's opinion on injury AOE/COE with respect to the heart and lungs is not substantial evidence because he did not sufficiently explain or provide a basis for his mechanism of injury theory, which is the Applicant gained a significant amount of weight post-injury as a compensable consequence of his accepted orthopedic injuries, which reduced and limited his physical activity level, and in turn contributed to the development of obesity, OSA, hyperventilation syndrome, and right sided heart failure obesity. (See Petition at p. 3.) It is true that Dr. Ganzhorn did not come around to this opinion until his deposition on March 26, 2021, (Joint 102 at pp. 21-22, when the light seemed to come as to that concept with questioning by Applicant's attorney Ryan Smith.

The WCJ found that the QME Dr. Ganzhorn's opinion, which changed to attribute the heart and lung injuries to compensable consequence of weight gain caused by reduced physical activity from accepted orthopedic injuries, was substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to heart and lungs.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ13463458 · 2021-02-08 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Order Denying Emergency Petition to Stay PQME1 Evaluation (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 8, 2020.2 By the Order, the WCJ denied defendant's Emergency Petition to Stay PQME Evaluation on December 19, 2020 Under CCR 10470.

The WCAB found the WCJ's denial of the emergency stay premature and procedurally improper, requiring further proceedings to address the specialty dispute with due process.

Official decision · page 1 →