California WCABLaw firm

Law Office of Gary C. Nelson

Law Office of Gary C. Nelson is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Apportionment (1) and Substantial evidence / credibility (1). They were heard most often at Stockton, then Lodi.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 2

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Stockton 4
Lodi 3

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.

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

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ11387739 · 2024-09-10 · Lodi District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The parties have selected F. Karl Gregorius, M.D., as the QME in neurosurgery. On April 24, 2024, the parties proceeded to trial. The parties stipulated therein to applicant's injury as having arisen out of and in the course of employment, and to injury to the bilateral wrists, elbows, and in the form of thoracic outlet syndrome. (Minutes of Hearing (Minutes), dated April 24, 2024, at p. 2:8.) The parties further stipulated, in relevant part, to the scheduled rating of the reporting of QME Dr. Gregorius, and to applicant's entitlement to future medical care to the bilateral wrists, elbow, and for applicant's thoracic [outlet] syndrome. (Id. at p. 2:38.) The sole issue framed by the parties was the "applicable apportionment" of QME Dr. Gregorius. The WCJ provided the parties with additional time in which to file trial briefs, and ordered the matter submitted for decision on May 22, 2024. On June 17, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&O, ordering in relevant part the appointment of Jonathan Rutchik, M.D., as a regular physician pursuant to Labor Code section 5701. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision notes that while the WCJ found the opinions of QME Dr. Gregorius to be well-reasoned, the QME stated in his deposition testimony that he was not an expert, and that the QME's reports and testimony did not rise to the level of substantial evidence.
The WCJ found the QME's apportionment analysis inconsistent and not substantial evidence, leading to appointment of a regular physician with expertise in thoracic outlet syndrome. The Appeals Board concurred and denied reconsideration, finding no error in the WCJ's weighing of evidence.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10687754 · 2024-07-01 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Orders of July 19, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that on November 10, 2016, applicant was employed by "You Lucky Dog" as a dog groomer, and that on said date applicant sustained industrial injury to his right hand and to the third and fourth digits of his right hand.1 The WCJ also found that applicant's earnings were minimum for purposes of temporary and permanent disability indemnity, but the WCJ deferred the issues of applicant's entitlement to temporary disability benefits and medical treatment.
The WCJ's finding that applicant was employed by You Lucky Dog when injured is affirmed based on credibility and evidence that applicant was controlled and integrated into the employer's business, including the replacement of the bathtub as part of his duties.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12479931 · 2024-03-26 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders, and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued on May 21, 2021, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant's injury on April 23, 2019 arose out of and was in the course of her employment (AOE/COE) with defendant and was not barred by the going and coming rule.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the applicant was required to use her personal vehicle to travel between fields and transport tools, and the accident occurred during a left turn into the place of employment, fitting the special risk and required vehicle exceptions to the going and coming rule.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10813808 · 2022-12-27 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Here, the WCJ found that applicant had dual employment with DTL Logistics, Inc. Texas and DTL Logistics, Inc., California. We agree. As set forth in Kowalski:
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10358078 · 2022-03-02 · Stockton District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 21, 2019, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained a specific non-industrial injury to his lower back on July 26, 2015; that as a result of the July 26, 2015 injury applicant underwent surgery which resulted in a non-industrial urological/bladder injury; that the record needs further development to determine whether applicant sustained a cumulative low back injury during the period ending November 18, 2018; and that orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Aubrey A. Swartz, M.D., was biased and was stricken as the QME in this matter.
The WCJ found QME Dr. Swartz biased and his opinions speculative and based on incorrect legal theories, thus not substantial evidence; the WCAB found no evidence of bias but agreed the reports were not substantial evidence and rescinded the prior decision for further development.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12634746 · 2025-11-07 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&O) on June 20, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, July 15, 2025 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on August 25, 2025 is untimely and must be dismissed.
The petition for reconsideration was filed after the jurisdictional deadline, so the Appeals Board has no authority to consider it.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12075945 · 2023-12-28 · Stockton District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.
The Appeals Board rescinded the prior WCJ decision and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the case is pending reconsideration.
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.

LAW OFFICES OF GARY NELSON
LAW OFFICE OF GARY C. NELSON
LAW OFFICES OF GARY C. NELSON
Law Office of Gary C. Nelson

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 →

Law Office of Gary C. Nelson

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

2 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ11387739 · 2024-09-10 · Lodi District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2The parties have selected F. Karl Gregorius, M.D., as the QME in neurosurgery. On April 24, 2024, the parties proceeded to trial. The parties stipulated therein to applicant's injury as having arisen out of and in the course of employment, and to injury to the bilateral wrists, elbows, and in the form of thoracic outlet syndrome. (Minutes of Hearing (Minutes), dated April 24, 2024, at p. 2:8.) The parties further stipulated, in relevant part, to the scheduled rating of the reporting of QME Dr. Gregorius, and to applicant's entitlement to future medical care to the bilateral wrists, elbow, and for applicant's thoracic [outlet] syndrome. (Id. at p. 2:38.) The sole issue framed by the parties was the "applicable apportionment" of QME Dr. Gregorius. The WCJ provided the parties with additional time in which to file trial briefs, and ordered the matter submitted for decision on May 22, 2024. On June 17, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&O, ordering in relevant part the appointment of Jonathan Rutchik, M.D., as a regular physician pursuant to Labor Code section 5701. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision notes that while the WCJ found the opinions of QME Dr. Gregorius to be well-reasoned, the QME stated in his deposition testimony that he was not an expert, and that the QME's reports and testimony did not rise to the level of substantial evidence.

The WCJ found the QME's apportionment analysis inconsistent and not substantial evidence, leading to appointment of a regular physician with expertise in thoracic outlet syndrome. The Appeals Board concurred and denied reconsideration, finding no error in the WCJ's weighing of evidence.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10687754 · 2024-07-01 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Orders of July 19, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that on November 10, 2016, applicant was employed by "You Lucky Dog" as a dog groomer, and that on said date applicant sustained industrial injury to his right hand and to the third and fourth digits of his right hand.1 The WCJ also found that applicant's earnings were minimum for purposes of temporary and permanent disability indemnity, but the WCJ deferred the issues of applicant's entitlement to temporary disability benefits and medical treatment.

The WCJ's finding that applicant was employed by You Lucky Dog when injured is affirmed based on credibility and evidence that applicant was controlled and integrated into the employer's business, including the replacement of the bathtub as part of his duties.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12479931 · 2024-03-26 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders, and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued on May 21, 2021, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant's injury on April 23, 2019 arose out of and was in the course of her employment (AOE/COE) with defendant and was not barred by the going and coming rule.

The WCJ and WCAB found that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the applicant was required to use her personal vehicle to travel between fields and transport tools, and the accident occurred during a left turn into the place of employment, fitting the special risk and required vehicle exceptions to the going and coming rule.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10813808 · 2022-12-27 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Here, the WCJ found that applicant had dual employment with DTL Logistics, Inc. Texas and DTL Logistics, Inc., California. We agree. As set forth in Kowalski:

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10358078 · 2022-03-02 · Stockton District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 21, 2019, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained a specific non-industrial injury to his lower back on July 26, 2015; that as a result of the July 26, 2015 injury applicant underwent surgery which resulted in a non-industrial urological/bladder injury; that the record needs further development to determine whether applicant sustained a cumulative low back injury during the period ending November 18, 2018; and that orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Aubrey A. Swartz, M.D., was biased and was stricken as the QME in this matter.

The WCJ found QME Dr. Swartz biased and his opinions speculative and based on incorrect legal theories, thus not substantial evidence; the WCAB found no evidence of bias but agreed the reports were not substantial evidence and rescinded the prior decision for further development.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12634746 · 2025-11-07 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&O) on June 20, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, July 15, 2025 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on August 25, 2025 is untimely and must be dismissed.

The petition for reconsideration was filed after the jurisdictional deadline, so the Appeals Board has no authority to consider it.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12075945 · 2023-12-28 · Stockton District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

The Appeals Board rescinded the prior WCJ decision and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the case is pending reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →