California WCABLaw firm

Wintersteen Casarez Law Corporation

Wintersteen Casarez Law Corporation is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Reopening / new and further disability (1) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Stockton.

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 8

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 4
Stockton 2
Anaheim 1
Bakersfield 1
Long Beach 1
Los Angeles 1
Sacramento 1
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.

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

Counted over 12 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ18656111 · 2026-06-26 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on March 3, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that defendant did not prove that decedent's death was proximately caused by intoxication. Defendant asserts that the WCJ erred because the evidence supports the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner ("QME") that intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury.
The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that decedent's intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury, due to lack of concrete evidence and reliance on speculative assumptions in the QME report.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18796354 · 2026-04-14 · Oakland District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration, and in the alternative removal of the Amended Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 2, 2025. In the F&O, the WCJ rescinded his October 22, 2025 decision in ADJ18796354 and ADJ18797375 and found in ADJ18796354 that applicant, while employed during the period ending December 1, 2023, as a tool and die specialist by defendant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to various body parts; and that the record requires further development in the form of further reporting or deposition testimony by the qualified medical evaluator (QME) Ryan Derby, M.D., "as to whether the bilateral upper extremities are part of the single cumulative injury he finds." With respect to both cases, the WCJ ordered further discovery with the QME Dr. Derby "with respect to whether the single cumulative injury he finds includes the bilateral upper extremities, including carpal tunnel syndrome, and if so, how and why he believes that to be the case" and he suggested "a QME re-exam to determine if the applicant's other injuries, as found by the QME are currently P&S and ratable." Finally, he ordered that all other issues were deferred.
The WCJ found the record needed further development regarding the cumulative injury claim, deferring all other issues pending this development, and the Board denied reconsideration of this order as it did not irreparably harm the defendant.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16741292 · 2025-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Defendant contends that applicant did not sustain an amputation hence is not eligible for the exception to the 104 week rule because the portion of the finger that was amputated was re- attached. I disagree with defendant's position.
The applicant sustained an amputation of part of his left index finger despite replantation surgery, which qualifies for the extended temporary disability benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c). Medical evidence from Dr. Chen and Dr. Jamasbi supports that the applicant is totally temporarily disabled and entitled to benefits.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ11187899 · 2021-05-21 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Review of the record indicates that defendant does not dispute applicant's claim that while at work on February 28, 2017, her right elbow was hit by a freezer door that was pushed open by a co-worker. It appears the actual issue is whether the February 28, 2017 incident constitutes an industrial injury. A specific injury is an incident that causes disability or need for medical treatment. (Lab. Code, § 3208.1(a).)
The record lacked substantial medical evidence addressing whether the February 28, 2017 incident constituted an industrial injury. The QME's opinions were not substantial evidence on injury AOE/COE, and the applicant's testimony was inconsistent with medical reports. The Appeals Board exercised its discretion to develop the record further by ordering a new evaluation by an agreed medical examiner or WCJ-appointed physician.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12009010 · 2026-06-23 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and found reconsideration an adequate remedy; the petition for disqualification was dismissed for failure to comply with timeliness and specificity requirements.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19897089 · 2026-02-03 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Here, the WCJ's decision includes findings that applicant sustained an admitted injury and regarding employment, which are threshold issues. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.
The WCJ's decision included findings on threshold issues (injury and employment), making it a final order subject to reconsideration. The applicant's challenge to the QME's timely report and continued appointment was interlocutory and subject to removal standards, but no significant prejudice or irreparable harm was shown.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12491308 · 2026-01-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.
The matter was pending on reconsideration but the parties reached a proposed settlement, so the WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the settlement.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15474735 · 2025-10-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the orders to appear and produce issued on September 11, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which ordered a representative from two investigation companies to appear in person at a subsequent hearing and produce their entire investigation files for inspection.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's orders violated defendant's due process rights by denying a hearing on the petition to quash, constituting substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, thus justifying removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12345287 · 2025-06-17 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on April 30, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18852191 · 2024-03-19 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13473299 · 2022-03-02 · Stockton 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 failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14320420 · 2021-10-01 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on May 25, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
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.

WINTERSTEEN CASAREZ
Wintersteen Casarez Law Corporation
WINTERSTEEN CASAREZ LAW CORPORATION
WINTERSTEEN CASAREZ LAW FIRM
Wintersteen Casarez, PLC
Wintersteen Casarez

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 →

Wintersteen Casarez Law Corporation

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

9 for the defense

2 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ18656111 · 2026-06-26 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on March 3, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that defendant did not prove that decedent's death was proximately caused by intoxication. Defendant asserts that the WCJ erred because the evidence supports the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner ("QME") that intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury.

The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that decedent's intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury, due to lack of concrete evidence and reliance on speculative assumptions in the QME report.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18796354 · 2026-04-14 · Oakland District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration, and in the alternative removal of the Amended Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 2, 2025. In the F&O, the WCJ rescinded his October 22, 2025 decision in ADJ18796354 and ADJ18797375 and found in ADJ18796354 that applicant, while employed during the period ending December 1, 2023, as a tool and die specialist by defendant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to various body parts; and that the record requires further development in the form of further reporting or deposition testimony by the qualified medical evaluator (QME) Ryan Derby, M.D., "as to whether the bilateral upper extremities are part of the single cumulative injury he finds." With respect to both cases, the WCJ ordered further discovery with the QME Dr. Derby "with respect to whether the single cumulative injury he finds includes the bilateral upper extremities, including carpal tunnel syndrome, and if so, how and why he believes that to be the case" and he suggested "a QME re-exam to determine if the applicant's other injuries, as found by the QME are currently P&S and ratable." Finally, he ordered that all other issues were deferred.

The WCJ found the record needed further development regarding the cumulative injury claim, deferring all other issues pending this development, and the Board denied reconsideration of this order as it did not irreparably harm the defendant.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16741292 · 2025-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Defendant contends that applicant did not sustain an amputation hence is not eligible for the exception to the 104 week rule because the portion of the finger that was amputated was re- attached. I disagree with defendant's position.

The applicant sustained an amputation of part of his left index finger despite replantation surgery, which qualifies for the extended temporary disability benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c). Medical evidence from Dr. Chen and Dr. Jamasbi supports that the applicant is totally temporarily disabled and entitled to benefits.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ11187899 · 2021-05-21 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Review of the record indicates that defendant does not dispute applicant's claim that while at work on February 28, 2017, her right elbow was hit by a freezer door that was pushed open by a co-worker. It appears the actual issue is whether the February 28, 2017 incident constitutes an industrial injury. A specific injury is an incident that causes disability or need for medical treatment. (Lab. Code, § 3208.1(a).)

The record lacked substantial medical evidence addressing whether the February 28, 2017 incident constituted an industrial injury. The QME's opinions were not substantial evidence on injury AOE/COE, and the applicant's testimony was inconsistent with medical reports. The Appeals Board exercised its discretion to develop the record further by ordering a new evaluation by an agreed medical examiner or WCJ-appointed physician.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12009010 · 2026-06-23 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and found reconsideration an adequate remedy; the petition for disqualification was dismissed for failure to comply with timeliness and specificity requirements.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19897089 · 2026-02-03 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Here, the WCJ's decision includes findings that applicant sustained an admitted injury and regarding employment, which are threshold issues. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

The WCJ's decision included findings on threshold issues (injury and employment), making it a final order subject to reconsideration. The applicant's challenge to the QME's timely report and continued appointment was interlocutory and subject to removal standards, but no significant prejudice or irreparable harm was shown.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12491308 · 2026-01-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

The matter was pending on reconsideration but the parties reached a proposed settlement, so the WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the settlement.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15474735 · 2025-10-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the orders to appear and produce issued on September 11, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which ordered a representative from two investigation companies to appear in person at a subsequent hearing and produce their entire investigation files for inspection.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's orders violated defendant's due process rights by denying a hearing on the petition to quash, constituting substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, thus justifying removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12345287 · 2025-06-17 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on April 30, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18852191 · 2024-03-19 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13473299 · 2022-03-02 · Stockton 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 failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14320420 · 2021-10-01 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on May 25, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

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.

WINTERSTEEN CASAREZ

Wintersteen Casarez Law Corporation

WINTERSTEEN CASAREZ LAW CORPORATION

WINTERSTEEN CASAREZ LAW FIRM

Wintersteen Casarez, PLC

Wintersteen Casarez