Law Offices of Nadeem Makada

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• San Francisco 28
• Oakland 2
• Stockton 2
• Lodi 1
• Sacramento 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.

• 18 for the defense
• 12 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 32 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.

• ADJ13514341 · 2026-09-01 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found the opinion of QME Dr. Hindocha to be substantial medical evidence supporting a 71% permanent disability rating by adding impairments due to synergistic effects on activities of daily living (ADLs), rebutting the use of the Combined Values Chart (CVC).

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ18016076 · 2026-08-31 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence and the Appeals Board may rely on the medical opinion of a single physician unless it is “based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess.” (Place v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378. In its petition, defendant contends, “Dr. Brewer’s cervical spine impairment rating does not satisfy the AMA Guides 5th Edition requirements for DRE Category III.” DRE Cervical Category III criteria includes: “significant signs of radiculopathy…” (Table 15-5.) Here, QME Dr. Fields Brewer opined applicant’s cervical spine WPI should be placed in DRE III because: - Applicant expresses neck pain radiating to the let upper extremity and numbness/tingling - MRI, multiple-level disc bulging - Diagnosis: cervical radiculopathy (Joint Exhibit 1, p. 12.) That analysis is unrebutted. I adopted the QME’s assigned cervical spine WPI of 17%. Defendant further contends, “Dr. Brewer’s left shoulder impairment rating is methodologically unsupported and speculative” because a left shoulder MRI had not been performed; Dr. Fields Brewer had conducted range of motion studies, however. Utilizing the ROM results, medical records review, examinations of the applicant, and utilization of AMA Guides, Dr. Fields Brewer determined that applicant’s WPI was 4%.

  The QME Dr. Fields Brewer's WPI ratings for cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and left shoulder, supported by medical examination and AMA Guides criteria, constitute substantial evidence for a 53% permanent disability rating.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ18042476 · 2026-08-10 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.12He estimates that he lifted consistently all day, especially while working in the warehouse.” (MOH, p. 5, lines 23-25.) Accordingly, we will grant applicant’s Petition, rescind the May 14, 2026 F&A and substitute a new F&A that defers the issues of permanent disability and occupational group number and return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the WCJ on May 14, 2026 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the May 14, 2026 Findings of Fact and Award is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:

  The WCJ's original permanent disability rating and occupational group number were rescinded due to insufficient explanation for the Almaraz/Guzman rating and incomplete evidence on occupational group; the matter was returned for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ13042541 · 2026-05-18 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent total disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 13, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine, cervical spine, thoracic spine, right ankle, right hip, right foot, right toes, complex regional pain syndrome, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists and right leg resulting in permanent total disability.

  The WCJ found permanent total disability based on substantial evidence including the QME's opinion that disabilities should be added rather than combined. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the record due to incomplete development and statutory time constraints.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8192069 · 2025-12-24 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Here, the August 5, 2025 UR determination certified the requested home healthcare treatment as medically necessary. Because the UR decision was valid and timely, the determination is binding on the employer and the employer must provide the treatment forthwith to cure or relieve the employee from the effects of the industrial injury. (Lab. Code, § 4600, subd. (a).)

  A valid, timely UR decision certifying medical necessity is binding on the employer; the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to set aside such a certification except for timeliness issues.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ11073230 · 2025-03-24 · Lodi District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Bluewater Industries, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the December 13, 2024 Findings of Fact and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) found that applicant, while employed as an asbestos removal worker on September 25, 2017, sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine resulting in permanent and total disability.

  The WCA found applicant's disability to be permanent and total based on vocational expert Simon's opinion that applicant was precluded from return to the open labor market, despite defense expert Westman's contrary opinion. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review this finding.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19352869 · 2024-12-30 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 4, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel number 7705175 is valid.

  The WCJ's finding that the QME panel number 7705175 is valid was not an abuse of discretion; service of the delay notice on applicant rather than her attorney was proper and did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm; reconsideration was an adequate remedy; therefore, removal was denied and reconsideration petition was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12878263 · 2024-12-23 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found that applicant failed to prove industrial causation of her injury because the WCJ found that applicant's history of injury was not credible.

  The WCJ's finding of lack of industrial causation was based on applicant's history being not credible, but the WCAB found the credibility findings inconsistent and the QME's opinion inadequate due to lack of medical records, thus remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14729505 · 2024-06-07 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant, a 39-year-old certified nurse assistant, suffered an accepted injury to her thoracic spine while helping pull a patient into bed. The primary issue at trial was permanent disability. At trial, applicant relied on reports from the primary treating physician, Gary Martinovsky, M.D. Defendant relied on reports from the QME, Edward Jennings, D.C. The parties stipulated to the PPD ratings of Dr. Martinovsky's report(s) (32%) and Dr. Jennings report(s) (8%).

  The WCJ found the primary treating physician's (Dr. Martinovsky) opinion to be substantial evidence and more persuasive than the QME's (Dr. Jennings) opinion, awarding 32% PPD based on credible testimony and medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11349951 · 2024-03-19 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact & Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 22, 2021. By the F&A, the WCJ found in relevant part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her head while employed by the defendant on March 25, 2018 as a janitor. She further found that applicant's primary treating physician is Tariq Mirza, M.D., and that the injury caused the need for further medical treatment.

  Applicant struck her head at work and defendant accepted liability for the head injury, thus applicant met burden to show injury AOE/COE. Defendant's challenge to injury AOE/COE was rejected due to lack of specific evidence against applicant's credibility.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7065881 · 2023-10-11 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3We should, in the absence of statutory direction and to avoid an injustice, prevent the barring of an applicant's claim against the Fund before it arises. Therefore, we hold that where, prior to the expiration of five years from the date of injury, an applicant does not know and could not reasonably be deemed to know that there will be substantial likelihood he will become entitled to subsequent injuries benefits, his application against the Fund will not be barred -- even if he has applied for normal benefits against his employer - - if he files a proceeding against the Fund within a reasonable time after he learns from the board's findings on the issue of permanent disability that the Fund has probable liability. (Talcott, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 65.)

  Applicant's SIBTF claim was filed more than five years after the subsequent injury date, exceeding the statutory limitation period under Talcott and Adams, making the claim untimely.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14628369 · 2022-04-25 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued on February 4, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that on April 20, 2021 applicant sustained injuries to various body parts arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) as a "Driving Logistics Associate/Driver" with defendant.

  The WCAB found that applicant's injury occurred within the course of employment under the personal comfort doctrine, based on credible testimony and circumstances of the parking spot swap and motor vehicle collision.

  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 NADEEM MAKADA
• Law Offices of Nadeem Makada
• LAW OFFICE OF NADEEM MAKADA
• LAW OFFICE OF NADEEM H. MAKADA
• The Law Office of Nadeem H. Makada
• LAW OFFICES OF NADEEM H. MAKADA
• Offices of Nadeem Makada

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.