California WCABLaw firm
Goldman Magdalin Straatsma, LLP
Goldman Magdalin Straatsma, LLP is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2024–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (4), AOE/COE (1) and Psyche AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Fresno, then Los Angeles. The firm it meets most often is Moore and Associates (2).
- Decisions
- 10
- Years
- 2024–2026
- Issues disputed
- 8
- District offices
- 7
Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 15 of 16 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.
4 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 9 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.
- ADJ11235520 · 2026-06-22 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Defendant relies on a UR request for additional information dated June 6, 2022, to support application of the extended timeframe under section 4610(j)(2). However, the determinative question is not merely the date appearing on the document, but whether the request was actually and immediately communicated to the treating physician and the employee within the statutory timeframe.
The record did not establish whether defendant timely and properly communicated the June 6, 2022 request for additional information, creating an evidentiary gap preventing determination of timeliness of the June 10, 2022 UR denial. The case was remanded for further evidentiary development to resolve this issue.
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 → - ADJ18038876 · 2025-12-16 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Dr. Peterson also noted that applicant has weakness in the shoulder as a ratable factor, quoting the AMA Guides, 16.8a (Page 508), which notes that an evaluator may rate loss of strength if strength represents an impairing factor that has not been considered adequately by other methods in the Guides. Dr. Peterson opined that applicant's strength loss should be rated. He felt that applicant gave a maximal effort and that pain did not prevent him from giving maximal effort. Dr. Peterson opined that the rating should be combined with the range of motion impairment and relied upon the Guides (Page 508) which indicates that loss of strength and other impairments may be combined if they are based on unrelated etiological or pathomechanical causes.
The Board found the PQME's rating of strength loss combined with range of motion impairment persuasive and rejected the outside rater's reduction of strength loss rating as outside the rater's role and unsupported by substantial evidence.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ19757339 · 2025-10-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that pursuant to AD Rule 10205.6(b), a strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel must be made via first class mail, absent agreement of the parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10205.6(b).) The WCJ found that WCAB Rule 10625(b)(2), does not apply to permit electronic service of a QME strike. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)(2).)
The Board found that Labor Code section 4062.2 requires only timely notification of opposing counsel to exercise a QME strike, not formal service by mail or electronic service rules.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ11027585 · 2025-02-13 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4INTRODUCTION Applicant filed a timely, verified, Petition for Reconsideration on November 22, 2024, challenging the Findings and Award after Remand (F&A 2) dated October 30, 2024 and served on October 31, 2024 in the above-referenced matters. the applicant (Applicant) worked as a physician's assistant, Occupational Group Number 212, at Los Angeles, California, by St. John's Well Child & Family Center, Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by Athens Administrators. While so employed she sustained two industrial injuries: a specific injury on October 14, 2015, assigned ADJ11027585, to her lumbar spine, with sacroiliac involvement, psyche, and internal in the form of hypertension, upper GI and lower GI; and, a specific injury on December 31, 2015, assigned ADJ11027586, to her cervical spine, psyche, and internal in the form of hypertension, upper GI and lower GI. On May 3, 2023 the parties initially tried this case before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge, the stipulations and issues were framed, applicant provided testimony, and after time for submission of post-trial briefs the matters were jointly submitted on June 2, 2023.
Applicant failed to provide evidence that her physical injury was catastrophic as required for increased permanent disability under the exceptions in Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B).
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ11027585 · 2024-05-28 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION Applicant contends that she is entitled to an increase in the impairment rating for her psychiatric injury because the injury was catastrophic pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4660.1(c)(2)(B). The issue was raised at trial, and the WCJ concluded that applicant's psychological disability arose out of her compensable physical injury and did not result from an exception in section 4660.1(c)(2). (Report, p. 8.) In addition to establishing an industrial injury by a preponderance of the evidence, applicant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, both the overall level of permanent disability and that at least some of this permanent disability was industrially caused. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc).)
The WCAB found that the WCJ did not properly analyze whether the psychiatric injury was catastrophic under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B) and remanded for further proceedings to develop the record and apply the Wilson factors.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ13528971 · 2024-05-28 · San Bernardino District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2We agree with the WCJ that section 4664(c)(1) limits the award for applicant's malignant melanoma, coronary heart disease, and pulmonary emboli, as all these conditions fall under the "catch-all" region in section 4664(c)(1)(G). However, applicant's injury to his lower extremity veins arguably fall under a different body region under section 4664(c)(1)(F). We, thus, grant reconsideration and return this matter to the trial level to develop the records as to applicant's injury to his lower extremity veins. (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal. App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; see § 5701 and 5906 and McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Bd. en banc).)
The Board granted reconsideration and remanded the matter to develop the record on the injury to the lower extremity veins, which may fall under a different body region than the other injuries.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ8935903 · 2025-09-10 · Oakland 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.1
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ20093698 · 2025-09-10 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On May 14, 2025, the parties proceeded to trial. Yet, we have not received notice from applicant that the petition is withdrawn. This lack of action on applicant's part causes delays and wastes the resources of the Appeals Board. In the future, applicant is reminded that the Appeals Board must be notified, and the petition for removal should be immediately withdrawn when the parties have proceeded to trial. Accordingly, the petition for removal is now moot, and we will dismiss the petition.
The petition was dismissed as moot because the parties proceeded to trial without withdrawal of the petition, causing delay and waste of resources.
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.
- GOLDMAN MAGDALIN STRAATSMA, LLP
- Goldman Magdalin Straatsma, LLP
- GOLDMAN, MAGDALIN STRAATSMA, 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.
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.