California WCABLaw firm

Ferrone Law Group

Ferrone Law Group is named in 18 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (4), Apportionment (1) and Cumulative trauma (1). They were heard most often at Fresno, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen (3).

Decisions: 18
Years: 2023–2026
Issues disputed: 7
District offices: 11

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.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

10 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

1 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

Fresno 4
Anaheim 2
Bakersfield 2
Sacramento 2
San Diego 2
Redding 1
Riverside 1
San Bernadino 1
Santa Ana 1
Stockton 1
Van Nuys 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.

6 for the applicant
5 for the defense
4 returned for more record

Counted over 15 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.

ADJ11286877 · 2026-01-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10Based on the opinions and deposition testimony of both AME Dr. Silverman and PTP Dr. Chon, we are persuaded that applicant's December 5, 2017 and January 3, 2018 injuries each resulted in a period of temporary total disability and corresponding entitlement to section 4850 benefits beginning July 18, 2018, and running through the date of applicant's cervical spine surgery on March 18, 2019. Because both injuries caused overlapping periods of temporary total disability, applicant's entitlement to section 4850 benefits would end one year from the initial start date of July 18, 2018. (Foster, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th 1505.) Following the expiration of the one year of section 4850 benefits on July 18, 2019, applicant would thereafter be entitled to ongoing temporary total disability for the December 5, 2017 injury to the neck through the earlier of the permanent and stationary date or the expiration of an additional 52 weeks of temporary total disability. (Lab. Code, § 4656(c)(2).)
The Board found that the applicant's cervical and lumbar spine injuries caused overlapping periods of temporary total disability, entitling her to concurrent section 4850 benefits from July 18, 2018 to March 18, 2019, and one year of section 4850 benefits from July 18, 2018, followed by temporary total disability benefits thereafter.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ12344251 · 2025-09-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeLiensremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Tiare Brock seeks reconsideration of the June 4, 2025 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his skin, psyche and injury in the form of PTSD, while employed as a Sheriff Deputy Sergeant, during the periods of October 17, 1994 through July 4, 2019. The WCJ further found that lien claimant failed to establish entitlement to penalties pursuant to section 5813 and that, pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4610 and 8 CCR § 9792.6.1(t), lien claimant's lien is deficient and disallowed.
The WCJ disallowed the lien due to failure to provide a request for authorization as required by Labor Code section 4610 and 8 CCR 9792.6.1(t). The Appeals Board found the record not properly developed and granted reconsideration to further study the issues.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16333606 · 2025-05-19 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 20, 2025, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) of Valley Fever or lungs and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of the claim filed.
Applicant contends entitlement to the presumption of injury AOE/COE under Labor Code section 3212 as a police officer, which the WCAB preliminarily agrees applies, but the WCJ applied section 3212.10. The case is remanded for further review of the presumption and rebuttal evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11978462 · 2025-02-03 · San Bernadino District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Here, Defendant argues that Dr. Woolf's reporting is not substantial medical evidence as to apportionment. The undersigned agrees, in part. Dr. Woolf's opinion provides no substantial medical evidence on which the Board can find any non-industrial apportionment. Instead, Dr. Woolf notes that apportionment is "not indicated." (Exhibit "4" pg. 8). Additionally, Dr. Lira's internal report provides no basis for non-industrial apportionment. (See Exhibit "E"). Defendant has thus provided no substantial medical evidence of apportionable disability. Defendant failed to meet their burden of proof on apportionment from an internal medicine standpoint.
Defendant failed to provide substantial medical evidence for non-industrial apportionment; applicant entitled to unapportioned award.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ16999983 · 2024-12-16 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2On September 25, 2024, the WCJ issued his decision, determining in relevant part that applicant sustained a cumulative injury in case no. ADJ16999983 from January 1, 2018 to August 18, 2022, but did not sustain a specific industrial injury in case no. ADJ17107739 on August 18, 2022. (Finding of Fact No. 2.) The WCJ determined that applicant sustained injury in the form of hypertension with heart problems, stroke, and damage to internal organs, resulting in permanent and total disability. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explained that the medical reporting of QME Dr. Nacouzi supported the attachment of the presumptions of causation found in Labor Code1 sections 3212.2 and 3212.10, and that defendant had not overcome those presumptions.
The WCJ and Appeals Board found that applicant sustained heart trouble manifesting during employment, triggering the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code sections 3212.2 and 3212.10, which defendant failed to rebut.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ14870064 · 2024-04-02 · Fresno District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2On January 11, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&A, finding in relevant part that "applicant's cumulative trauma is not barred by the Statute of Limitations." (Finding of Fact No. 5.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explains that applicant's first date of knowledge sufficient to establish a date of injury pursuant to section 5412 was July 1, 2021. Accordingly, the Application for Adjudication of Claim filed on July 7, 2021 was timely. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 9.)
The WCJ found the applicant's first date of knowledge sufficient to establish a date of injury was July 1, 2021, making the claim timely filed on July 7, 2021, within the one-year statute of limitations under section 5405.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10821987 · 2024-03-01 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 12, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's injury to his brain and nervous system, in the form of a stroke, arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment with defendant.
The issue of whether the stroke injury was industrial was deferred because the medical opinions from QMEs Mahmoudi and Rutchik were not substantial evidence as they deferred causation to a cardiologist, and the record lacked substantial evidence on this threshold issue.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11896991 · 2023-09-26 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award and Opinion on Decision (F&A) issued on July 14, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) applicant sustained injury to the heart which began developing during his employment with defendant; and (2) applicant is entitled to an unapportioned award for the cardiac portion of the case of permanent disability which the parties agree rates 57 percent.
The Board found that the WCJ's finding that heart trouble developed during employment was not supported by substantial medical evidence, specifically the PQME's opinion did not establish when LVH developed; therefore, the matter was remanded for further development of the record on this issue.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8257521 · 2025-12-05 · Bakersfield District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Based on the facts presented here, applicant's coronary artery disease is not a progressive insidious disease. Applicant's disease is not progressively worsening. To the contrary, the AME opines that applicant's disease has stabilized and applicant is permanent and stationary. It is not enough to show that a disease process may worsen at some point in the future. That is true of every disease or condition. Instead, applicant must show to a reasonable degree of medical probability that the disease is actually getting worse.
Applicant's coronary artery disease is not a progressive insidious disease; the AME opined the condition is stable and permanent and stationary, insufficient to reserve jurisdiction under Jackson.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ12674446 · 2025-07-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the "Order Suspending Action" (Order) issued on May 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant further seeks disqualification of the WCJ.
The WCJ's May 12, 2025 Order Suspending Action contained unqualified opinions on attorney fees creating an appearance of bias, warranting disqualification and removal. The order was interlocutory and not final, so reconsideration was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13398558 · 2024-11-19 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Order Suspending Action on Proposed Settlement (Order) issued on November 14, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that no action be taken on the parties' Stipulations With Request for Award until it is amended to contain their "wet" or actual signatures.
The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and because reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7243550 · 2024-05-20 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Removal of the Order continuing the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) of January 4, 2024, to February 8, 2024 because the pre-trial conference statement filed for the hearing only contained applicant attorney's signature.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to applicant.
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.

FERRONE LAW GROUP
FERRONE & FERRONE
Ferrone Law Group
Ferrone & Ferrone
Law Offices of Ferrone & Ferrone
Ferrone and Ferrone Law Group
FERRONE FERRONE

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 →

Ferrone Law Group

Decisions

Years

2023–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

What they litigate

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

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

5 for the defense

4 returned for more record

Counted over 15 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.

ADJ11286877 · 2026-01-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10Based on the opinions and deposition testimony of both AME Dr. Silverman and PTP Dr. Chon, we are persuaded that applicant's December 5, 2017 and January 3, 2018 injuries each resulted in a period of temporary total disability and corresponding entitlement to section 4850 benefits beginning July 18, 2018, and running through the date of applicant's cervical spine surgery on March 18, 2019. Because both injuries caused overlapping periods of temporary total disability, applicant's entitlement to section 4850 benefits would end one year from the initial start date of July 18, 2018. (Foster, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th 1505.) Following the expiration of the one year of section 4850 benefits on July 18, 2019, applicant would thereafter be entitled to ongoing temporary total disability for the December 5, 2017 injury to the neck through the earlier of the permanent and stationary date or the expiration of an additional 52 weeks of temporary total disability. (Lab. Code, § 4656(c)(2).)

The Board found that the applicant's cervical and lumbar spine injuries caused overlapping periods of temporary total disability, entitling her to concurrent section 4850 benefits from July 18, 2018 to March 18, 2019, and one year of section 4850 benefits from July 18, 2018, followed by temporary total disability benefits thereafter.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ12344251 · 2025-09-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeLiensremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Tiare Brock seeks reconsideration of the June 4, 2025 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his skin, psyche and injury in the form of PTSD, while employed as a Sheriff Deputy Sergeant, during the periods of October 17, 1994 through July 4, 2019. The WCJ further found that lien claimant failed to establish entitlement to penalties pursuant to section 5813 and that, pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4610 and 8 CCR § 9792.6.1(t), lien claimant's lien is deficient and disallowed.

The WCJ disallowed the lien due to failure to provide a request for authorization as required by Labor Code section 4610 and 8 CCR 9792.6.1(t). The Appeals Board found the record not properly developed and granted reconsideration to further study the issues.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16333606 · 2025-05-19 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 20, 2025, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) of Valley Fever or lungs and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of the claim filed.

Applicant contends entitlement to the presumption of injury AOE/COE under Labor Code section 3212 as a police officer, which the WCAB preliminarily agrees applies, but the WCJ applied section 3212.10. The case is remanded for further review of the presumption and rebuttal evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11978462 · 2025-02-03 · San Bernadino District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Here, Defendant argues that Dr. Woolf's reporting is not substantial medical evidence as to apportionment. The undersigned agrees, in part. Dr. Woolf's opinion provides no substantial medical evidence on which the Board can find any non-industrial apportionment. Instead, Dr. Woolf notes that apportionment is "not indicated." (Exhibit "4" pg. 8). Additionally, Dr. Lira's internal report provides no basis for non-industrial apportionment. (See Exhibit "E"). Defendant has thus provided no substantial medical evidence of apportionable disability. Defendant failed to meet their burden of proof on apportionment from an internal medicine standpoint.

Defendant failed to provide substantial medical evidence for non-industrial apportionment; applicant entitled to unapportioned award.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ16999983 · 2024-12-16 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2On September 25, 2024, the WCJ issued his decision, determining in relevant part that applicant sustained a cumulative injury in case no. ADJ16999983 from January 1, 2018 to August 18, 2022, but did not sustain a specific industrial injury in case no. ADJ17107739 on August 18, 2022. (Finding of Fact No. 2.) The WCJ determined that applicant sustained injury in the form of hypertension with heart problems, stroke, and damage to internal organs, resulting in permanent and total disability. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explained that the medical reporting of QME Dr. Nacouzi supported the attachment of the presumptions of causation found in Labor Code1 sections 3212.2 and 3212.10, and that defendant had not overcome those presumptions.

The WCJ and Appeals Board found that applicant sustained heart trouble manifesting during employment, triggering the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code sections 3212.2 and 3212.10, which defendant failed to rebut.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ14870064 · 2024-04-02 · Fresno District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2On January 11, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&A, finding in relevant part that "applicant's cumulative trauma is not barred by the Statute of Limitations." (Finding of Fact No. 5.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explains that applicant's first date of knowledge sufficient to establish a date of injury pursuant to section 5412 was July 1, 2021. Accordingly, the Application for Adjudication of Claim filed on July 7, 2021 was timely. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 9.)

The WCJ found the applicant's first date of knowledge sufficient to establish a date of injury was July 1, 2021, making the claim timely filed on July 7, 2021, within the one-year statute of limitations under section 5405.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10821987 · 2024-03-01 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 12, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's injury to his brain and nervous system, in the form of a stroke, arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment with defendant.

The issue of whether the stroke injury was industrial was deferred because the medical opinions from QMEs Mahmoudi and Rutchik were not substantial evidence as they deferred causation to a cardiologist, and the record lacked substantial evidence on this threshold issue.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11896991 · 2023-09-26 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award and Opinion on Decision (F&A) issued on July 14, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) applicant sustained injury to the heart which began developing during his employment with defendant; and (2) applicant is entitled to an unapportioned award for the cardiac portion of the case of permanent disability which the parties agree rates 57 percent.

The Board found that the WCJ's finding that heart trouble developed during employment was not supported by substantial medical evidence, specifically the PQME's opinion did not establish when LVH developed; therefore, the matter was remanded for further development of the record on this issue.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8257521 · 2025-12-05 · Bakersfield District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Based on the facts presented here, applicant's coronary artery disease is not a progressive insidious disease. Applicant's disease is not progressively worsening. To the contrary, the AME opines that applicant's disease has stabilized and applicant is permanent and stationary. It is not enough to show that a disease process may worsen at some point in the future. That is true of every disease or condition. Instead, applicant must show to a reasonable degree of medical probability that the disease is actually getting worse.

Applicant's coronary artery disease is not a progressive insidious disease; the AME opined the condition is stable and permanent and stationary, insufficient to reserve jurisdiction under Jackson.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ12674446 · 2025-07-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the "Order Suspending Action" (Order) issued on May 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant further seeks disqualification of the WCJ.

The WCJ's May 12, 2025 Order Suspending Action contained unqualified opinions on attorney fees creating an appearance of bias, warranting disqualification and removal. The order was interlocutory and not final, so reconsideration was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13398558 · 2024-11-19 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Order Suspending Action on Proposed Settlement (Order) issued on November 14, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that no action be taken on the parties' Stipulations With Request for Award until it is amended to contain their "wet" or actual signatures.

The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and because reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7243550 · 2024-05-20 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Removal of the Order continuing the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) of January 4, 2024, to February 8, 2024 because the pre-trial conference statement filed for the hearing only contained applicant attorney's signature.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to applicant.

Official decision · page 1 →