California WCABLaw firm

Hiden, Rott & Oertle

Hiden, Rott & Oertle is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (4), Psyche AOE/COE (2) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at San Diego, then Santa Ana. The firm it meets most often is England, Ponticello & St. Clair (2).

Decisions: 10
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 of 8 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.

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

San Diego 9
Santa Ana 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.

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

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.

ADJ15211632 · 2026-06-25 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2026 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that a prior utilization review (UR) decision denying authorization for a requested treatment barred a subsequent request for authorization (RFA) for the same treatment submitted on December 4, 2025. The WCJ further determined that the UR decision issued on December 8, 2025 regarding authorization for a wheelchair accessible hotel room was untimely but that the requested services were not medically necessary.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in concluding the prior UR decision barred the subsequent request and that the December 8, 2025 UR decision was untimely but the requested treatment was medically necessary, warranting reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10385820 · 2024-01-02 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.10In summary, we concur with the WCJ's analysis that section 4605 is not relevant to the issue of the submission of the October 6, 2021 report of Dr. Munday, obtained by defendant, to the QME. We conclude however that the issues that must be addressed herein are whether the reporting of Dr. Munday is properly considered a comprehensive medical legal report, whether the report was obtained in compliance with section 4060 and 4062.2, and whether applicant has waived his objection to the submission of the October 6, 2021 report of Dr. Munday to the QME. Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the October 10, 2023 F&O, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ. Any aggrieved person may thereafter seek reconsideration.
The WCJ's order to exclude the October 6, 2021 report of Dr. Munday from submission to the QME was rescinded because the issues of whether the report is a comprehensive medical legal report, compliance with sections 4060 and 4062.2, and waiver of objection by applicant must be further addressed at trial level.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ11439752 · 2022-08-15 · San Diego District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Defendant's petition alleges that the degree of permanent partial disability assigned by the WCJ to applicant's loss of grip strength is not appropriate in light of the evidence. In reaching his opinion regarding permanent partial disability, the WCJ has relied upon the conclusions of the qualified medical evaluator, Dr. Wayne Inman, and applicant's primary treating physician, Glenn Nussbaum DC.
The WCJ credited the primary treating physician's opinion over the QME's lower impairment rating, finding the treating physician's assessment more credible and supported by the evidence, including the absence of pain during grip strength testing.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10816406 · 2022-03-07 · San Diego District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In order to establish the compensability of a psychiatric injury under Labor Code1 section 3208.3, an injured worker has the burden of establishing "by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1).) "Predominant as to all causes" means that "the work-related cause has greater than a 50 percent share of the entire set of causal factors." (Dept. of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 810, 816 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 1356, 1360]; Watts v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 684, 688 (writ den.); Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241, 246 (Appeals Board en banc).)
The WCJ and Appeals Board found that applicant met burden to prove actual events of employment were predominant cause of psychiatric injury, supported by credible testimony and substantial medical opinion of PQME Dr. Mednitsky. Defendant failed to prove lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions as substantial cause.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12516127 · 2022-01-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.15(Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 9785 (f)(8).) Dr. Abitbol seems to substitute his "any chance" of helping standard in place of "reasonable medical probability" in support of his request for Zolgensma. For each and all of the reasons noted, the report of Dr. Abitbol is not substantial medical evidence on the issue of the reasonableness and necessity of Zolgensma. The court finds that applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that Zolgensma is reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of his injury.
The court found that the report of Dr. Abitbol was not substantial medical evidence on the issue of the reasonableness and necessity of Zolgensma. The applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that Zolgensma is reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of his injury.
Official decision · page 15 →
ADJ11315552 · 2021-10-05 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Schweller's assertion that his March 4, 2021 RFA should be evaluated on an expedited basis was at issue, but defendant failed to prove that the request for expedited review was not applicable; and to include the ninety day period requested by Dr. Schweller in the award of home health care. The record reveals that the parties framed the issue of whether Dr. Schweller's assertion that his March 4, 2021 RFA should be evaluated on an expedited basis as an issue of "standing." (Report, p. 8.) However, the WCJ determined that defendant failed to prove that Dr. Schweller's request for expedited review was not applicable on the merits. (Id.) Accordingly, we will amend to find that Dr.
Defendant has standing to challenge the type of review but failed to prove the expedited review request was not applicable.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10954369 · 2021-10-04 · San Diego District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ found Dr. MacLean's reporting established that the industrial injury was the predominant cause of applicant's psychological injury, meeting the standard in Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1), and found applicant's psychological condition was a direct result of his industrial head trauma. The WCJ rejected the reporting of Dr. Tawfique, finding his opinion was based on "inaccurate histories and medical theories." (Opinion on Decision, p. 7.)
The WCJ found the psychological injury was a direct result of the industrial head trauma based on Dr. MacLean's opinion, but the Appeals Board found Dr. MacLean's reports ambiguous on whether the psyche injury was direct or consequential and remanded for clarification.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11315552 · 2024-12-11 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to an Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) at a Status Conference (Conference) on January 25, 2024. At the Conference, the WCJ issued an Order denying defendant's petition to quash the deposition of the former claims examiner on applicant's case, as well as an Order allowing defendant to depose applicant's treating physician, with the condition that the physician's deposition be set in front of the WCJ.
The WCAB found that the WCJ's order denying the petition to quash was issued without a proper record or hearing, violating due process rights and lacking substantial evidence support, thus warranting removal and rescission of the order.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17524010 · 2024-03-20 · San Diego 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 removal 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 →

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.

HIDEN, ROTT & OERTLE
Hiden, Rott & Oertle
Hiden Rott & Oertle, LLP
HIDEN, ROTT & OERTLE, LLP
Hiden Rott Oertle, 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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Hiden, Rott & Oertle

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

4 for the defense

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.

ADJ15211632 · 2026-06-25 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2026 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that a prior utilization review (UR) decision denying authorization for a requested treatment barred a subsequent request for authorization (RFA) for the same treatment submitted on December 4, 2025. The WCJ further determined that the UR decision issued on December 8, 2025 regarding authorization for a wheelchair accessible hotel room was untimely but that the requested services were not medically necessary.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in concluding the prior UR decision barred the subsequent request and that the December 8, 2025 UR decision was untimely but the requested treatment was medically necessary, warranting reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10385820 · 2024-01-02 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

Determinative passage · p.10In summary, we concur with the WCJ's analysis that section 4605 is not relevant to the issue of the submission of the October 6, 2021 report of Dr. Munday, obtained by defendant, to the QME. We conclude however that the issues that must be addressed herein are whether the reporting of Dr. Munday is properly considered a comprehensive medical legal report, whether the report was obtained in compliance with section 4060 and 4062.2, and whether applicant has waived his objection to the submission of the October 6, 2021 report of Dr. Munday to the QME. Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the October 10, 2023 F&O, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ. Any aggrieved person may thereafter seek reconsideration.

The WCJ's order to exclude the October 6, 2021 report of Dr. Munday from submission to the QME was rescinded because the issues of whether the report is a comprehensive medical legal report, compliance with sections 4060 and 4062.2, and waiver of objection by applicant must be further addressed at trial level.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ11439752 · 2022-08-15 · San Diego District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Defendant's petition alleges that the degree of permanent partial disability assigned by the WCJ to applicant's loss of grip strength is not appropriate in light of the evidence. In reaching his opinion regarding permanent partial disability, the WCJ has relied upon the conclusions of the qualified medical evaluator, Dr. Wayne Inman, and applicant's primary treating physician, Glenn Nussbaum DC.

The WCJ credited the primary treating physician's opinion over the QME's lower impairment rating, finding the treating physician's assessment more credible and supported by the evidence, including the absence of pain during grip strength testing.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10816406 · 2022-03-07 · San Diego District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2In order to establish the compensability of a psychiatric injury under Labor Code1 section 3208.3, an injured worker has the burden of establishing "by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1).) "Predominant as to all causes" means that "the work-related cause has greater than a 50 percent share of the entire set of causal factors." (Dept. of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 810, 816 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 1356, 1360]; Watts v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 684, 688 (writ den.); Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241, 246 (Appeals Board en banc).)

The WCJ and Appeals Board found that applicant met burden to prove actual events of employment were predominant cause of psychiatric injury, supported by credible testimony and substantial medical opinion of PQME Dr. Mednitsky. Defendant failed to prove lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions as substantial cause.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12516127 · 2022-01-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.15(Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 9785 (f)(8).) Dr. Abitbol seems to substitute his "any chance" of helping standard in place of "reasonable medical probability" in support of his request for Zolgensma. For each and all of the reasons noted, the report of Dr. Abitbol is not substantial medical evidence on the issue of the reasonableness and necessity of Zolgensma. The court finds that applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that Zolgensma is reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of his injury.

The court found that the report of Dr. Abitbol was not substantial medical evidence on the issue of the reasonableness and necessity of Zolgensma. The applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that Zolgensma is reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of his injury.

Official decision · page 15 →

ADJ11315552 · 2021-10-05 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Schweller's assertion that his March 4, 2021 RFA should be evaluated on an expedited basis was at issue, but defendant failed to prove that the request for expedited review was not applicable; and to include the ninety day period requested by Dr. Schweller in the award of home health care. The record reveals that the parties framed the issue of whether Dr. Schweller's assertion that his March 4, 2021 RFA should be evaluated on an expedited basis as an issue of "standing." (Report, p. 8.) However, the WCJ determined that defendant failed to prove that Dr. Schweller's request for expedited review was not applicable on the merits. (Id.) Accordingly, we will amend to find that Dr.

Defendant has standing to challenge the type of review but failed to prove the expedited review request was not applicable.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10954369 · 2021-10-04 · San Diego District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ found Dr. MacLean's reporting established that the industrial injury was the predominant cause of applicant's psychological injury, meeting the standard in Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1), and found applicant's psychological condition was a direct result of his industrial head trauma. The WCJ rejected the reporting of Dr. Tawfique, finding his opinion was based on "inaccurate histories and medical theories." (Opinion on Decision, p. 7.)

The WCJ found the psychological injury was a direct result of the industrial head trauma based on Dr. MacLean's opinion, but the Appeals Board found Dr. MacLean's reports ambiguous on whether the psyche injury was direct or consequential and remanded for clarification.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11315552 · 2024-12-11 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to an Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) at a Status Conference (Conference) on January 25, 2024. At the Conference, the WCJ issued an Order denying defendant's petition to quash the deposition of the former claims examiner on applicant's case, as well as an Order allowing defendant to depose applicant's treating physician, with the condition that the physician's deposition be set in front of the WCJ.

The WCAB found that the WCJ's order denying the petition to quash was issued without a proper record or hearing, violating due process rights and lacking substantial evidence support, thus warranting removal and rescission of the order.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17524010 · 2024-03-20 · San Diego 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 removal 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 →