Dandre Law

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Jurisdiction / venue2
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131

Where they appear

• Oakland 2
• Redding 2
• Lodi 1
• San Francisco 1
• San Jose 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.

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

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.

• ADJ19868198 · 2026-04-20 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the January 27, 2026 Findings and Order ("F&O"), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that applicant did not suffer a work-related injury, based upon a lack of supporting medical evidence. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by failing admit and consider reports prepared by a Qualified Medical Evaluator ("QME") that found applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment ("AOE/COE").

  The WCJ initially found no medical evidence supporting injury, but the WCAB found the QME reports were critical evidence that should have been admitted and that the WCJ erred in denying remote testimony and in proceeding without considering the QME reports, thus remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18309914 · 2026-04-20 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5As summarized in the Opinion on Decision, applicant testified that on 4/06/2023, he was pulling a hose to get ready for an inspection when he stepped on a plastic pipe, slipped, and fell backwards landing on the ground. He testified he injured his leg, calf, and back. He testified he was carrying the hose on his left side, and that when he landed, it was in a twisted position on his left side. He testified he received treatment for his injury that same day with a doctor from Kaiser.

  The applicant's credible testimony, supported by medical opinions including QME Dr. the applicant's, established a compensable injury to the left calf and lumbar spine as a compensable consequence of the industrial injury, despite some medical reports lacking specific lumbar spine documentation.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16790828 · 2025-11-10 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11Finally, Ajaib Kahlon the applicant was joined as an additional party after the trial had already been submitted.4 Over applicant's objection, the WCJ continued with proceedings. In this case, the applicant is an indispensable party as a potential employer. The matter should not have been heard or decided until he was properly joined. All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is "... one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant..." (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the California Supreme Court in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, [The] commission,... must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, -- in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law. (Id. at p. 577.) Because the parties are so intertwined, the issue of multiple employments cannot be bifurcated, and due process requires that all potential employers be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Even if the record were not in shambles as it is here, due process would still require that the decision be rescinded and remanded.

  The record was found inadequate and inconsistent to determine employment status; due process required joinder of all potential employers and further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ10085912 · 2024-03-19 · Lodi District OfficeJurisdiction / venuemixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Hampshire Insurance Company seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 2, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that defendant Zurich America Insurance Company's petition for contribution was timely, except as to the award of temporary disability benefits in the Stipulation and Award of February 16, 2016.

  The petition for contribution was timely except as to temporary disability indemnity and medical treatment with Dr. Immerman from the February 16, 2016 Stipulations and Award, based on the case law requiring petitions within one year of the award.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16790828 · 2026-02-02 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On the contrary, the Appeals Board's Opinion and Order rescinded the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and defendant's Petition for Reconsideration will be dismissed. We will also deny the petition to the extent it seeks removal. Removal 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, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, 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 petition for removal was denied because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ17299017 · 2024-07-01 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm 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.

• DANDRE LAW
• Dandre Law
• Dandre Law, LLP
• DANDRE LAW LLP

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.