Yrulegui & Roberts

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Fresno 9
• Bakersfield 6
• Salinas 2
• Sacramento 1
• San Bernardino 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.

• 10 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 21 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.

• ADJ12418883 · 2026-05-07 · Bakersfield District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, as explained below, because Dr. Kesselman's opinions are not clear with respect to the date of injury, the medical evidence is not sufficient to support that applicant sustained an industrial injury. Nevertheless, we must emphasize that when a WCJ determines that an employee did not sustain an industrial injury to psyche, there is no compensation owed, and there is no need to analyze whether compensation is barred by good faith personnel actions. Here however, once the record is further developed with respect to the medical evidence, if it is sufficient to support that applicant's claimed injury to psyche was industrially caused, defendant will have to meet its burden to show that compensation is barred.

  The WCAB found that the medical evidence from Dr. Kesselman was not sufficient to establish the date and causation of the psychiatric injury as industrial, requiring further development of the record by the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10598940 · 2026-04-10 · Fresno District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12III DISCUSSION I. The WCAB had no jurisdiction and therefore the Medical Unit had no jurisdiction for Gallagher Bassett to request panel # 7404253 on 4/9/21. The board has no jurisdiction over any aspect of a workers' compensation claim until an application for adjudication has been filed. This rule has been codified in Regulation 10450(b). The Medical Unit, which issues QME panels, operates under the authority of the WCAB. Since the WCAB has no jurisdiction until an application is filed, the Medical Unit cannot issue a QME panel without an underlying case that gives the WCAB jurisdiction. In this case, as of 4/9/21 ADJ16413854 did not exist. There was no petition for new and further disability filed in ADJ10598940. No jurisdiction had been established on 4/9/21 to request panel # 7404253. (Labor Code Section 5500, nor Regulation 10450(b).) Therefore, panel # 7404253 is an invalid panel. a. There is no legal basis to argue Panel #7404253 dated 4/9/21 was requested to enforce a stipulated medical award. Future medical awards are enforced pursuant to LC § 4610. Treating physicians submit requests for authorization (RFAs) for medical treatment. The RFAs are then subject to utilization review (UR). b.

  The WCAB lacked jurisdiction to issue QME Panel 7404253 on 4/9/21 because the underlying case ADJ16413854 did not exist at that time, and no petition for new and further disability was filed in ADJ10598940. Therefore, the panel was invalid and Dr. Graham's reports were excluded.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ19039281 · 2025-10-28 · San Bernardino District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Additionally, the WCJ's decision to invalidate panel number 7774203 to the extent it was not properly served is consistent with WCAB Rule 10625, which states in relevant part:

  The panel number 7774203 was invalidated because the claim number used was incorrect and the panel was not properly served, consistent with regulatory requirements and precedent.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10518881 · 2025-03-17 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant raises issues as to the WCJ's findings of fact as to the PD rating and the exclusion of any psychiatric component pursuant to Labor Code2 section 4660.1, subdivision (c)(1) (section 4660.1(c)(1)), and thus, the award of PD. However, neither the WCJ's Opinion on Decision nor Report3 is sufficient to make the right of reconsideration meaningful on these issues.

  The WCJ's original findings on PD rating and psychiatric component exclusion lacked sufficient evidentiary and legal basis, including reliance on inadmissible DEU consultative rating and failure to properly assess catastrophic injury criteria, necessitating deferral of these issues for further consideration.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16964158 · 2024-09-10 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 19, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant on September 26, 2022, applicant sustained injury and that "the parts of body injured are not at issue for this trial"; that a nurse practitioner's report constitutes a valid Primary Treatment Physician (PTP) report; that defendant filed a valid objection letter to the determination of the primary treating physician; and that after the strike process, the remaining doctor will serve as the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME).

  Applicant challenged the validity of the nurse practitioner's PTP report and defendant's objection letter; the WCJ found the objection valid and the Appeals Board denied removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12410207 · 2024-05-03 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of February 5, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, while working as a utility worker for FCEC/SMG, sustained injury (arising out of and occurring in the course of employment) to his left ankle and left arm, as a result of falling from a forklift on May 23, 2019. In addition, the WCJ found that "applicant asked a forklift operator co-employee to give him a ride to his car in the parking lot so he could retrieve his lunch," that "as a result of actions of a co-employee, applicant was thrown off the forklift, sustaining injury to his left ankle and left arm," that the "employer has denied the claim in its entirety," that "applicant sustained his injuries on employer's premises (i.e., the parking lot adjacent to the Convention Center), therefore he was within the curtilage of the building in which he worked, which was thus under employer's exclusive control," that "the co-employee, who was a trained and certificated forklift driver, gave the co-employee superior knowledge as to the safe operation of the forklift," that "aside from the self-serving testimony of employer's operations manager, no corroborating evidence was presented as to safety meeting discussions regarding the safe use of forklifts," that "applicant's testimony, therefore, that he received no such

  The injury occurred while the applicant was on an employer-designated parking lot during an employer-approved lunch break, and the injury arose from a risk connected with employment, not horseplay or negligence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14038029 · 2024-03-12 · Salinas District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.133. Pursuant to Labor Code section 5412, the date of injury was December 11, 2020. 4. Compensation is not barred by Labor Code section 5405. 5. Applicant's gastritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease and related insomnia are

  The date of injury was set at December 11, 2020, when applicant first had compensable disability and knowledge of industrial causation, making the claim timely under section 5405.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ11357027 · 2023-03-02 · Bakersfield District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant Del Carmen Medical Center petitioned for reconsideration of the Order Dismissing Lien Claimant without prejudice which was issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 5, 2022. The Order of Dismissal was in response to a Petition to Dismiss filed by defendant as to Del Carmen Medical Center for lack of prosecution of its lien.

  The lien claimant's petition for reconsideration was denied by the WCJ but granted by the WCAB, which rescinded the dismissal order and approved a settlement stipulation resolving the lien dispute.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ4528679 · 2022-05-25 · Fresno District OfficeContribution / subrogationremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914, emphasis added.) Lowe's Petition extensively references a transcript of applicant's testimony, taken January 4, 2005, but the transcript is not in the record. (Petition, pp. 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 19, 20.) In the absence of an evidentiary record, we are unable to evaluate the basis of the arbitrator's F&O. Therefore, we must return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. Because further proceedings will be conducted after January 1, 2020, the arbitrator and parties should consult WCAB Rules 10914 and 10995 for guidance on the requirements of an arbitration record and petitions for reconsideration from an arbitrator's decision. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 10914, 10995.) Accordingly, we rescind the February 14, 2020 F&O, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The arbitrator's decision was not supported by an adequate evidentiary record, as required by statute and regulation, making it impossible for the Appeals Board to evaluate the basis for the findings and order. The matter must be remanded for further proceedings with a proper record.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11006262 · 2022-01-13 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, and we affirm the F&A except that we amend the F&A to include the findings that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her right knee, and right ankle, and that she claimed injury AOE/COE to her back, left shoulder, and chest.

  The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to right knee and right ankle, and claims to back, left shoulder, and chest, based on credible testimony and medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11562135 · 2021-11-19 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this case, we agree with the WCJ that applicant did not meet his burden of proof.

  Applicant failed to prove employment and injury arising out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of the evidence, as found by the WCJ and affirmed by the panel.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ12529330 · 2021-04-09 · Fresno District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The facts of this case are not in dispute and are set forth in Dr. Sanjay Agarwal's QME report dated 6/11/19. The doctor summarized that while the applicant was using one of the stalls in the restroom at work, he noticed an individual in the next stall was pointing a cell phone camera at him from under the wall dividing the two stalls. The applicant told the other individual that it was illegal to point a cell phone camera in a public restroom. The other individual immediately left but the applicant was able to identify him from his shirt and shoes as a co-worker that worked on the other side of the applicant's cubicle wall. The applicant confronted the individual who eventually admitted his involvement. (Exh. 1, QME report Dr. Sanjay Agarwal, 6/11/19, pgs. 9-10.)

  The psychiatric injury was found to be compensable because the employment relationship provided the means and opportunity for the injury to occur, and the injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment, including the employer's restroom facilities and the co-worker's access during work hours.

  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.

• YRULEGUI & ROBERTS
• Yrulegui & Roberts
• Yrulegui Roberts
• YRULEGUI ROBERTS

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.