Manning & Kass

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 6
• San Jose 4
• San Diego 3
• Oakland 2
• Pomona 2
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• Lodi 1
• Long Beach Office 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Riverside 1
• San Francisco 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.

• 13 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 23 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.

• ADJ10715566 · 2026-03-19 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings & Award (F&A) issued on September 13, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury while employed by defendant on March 19, 2014 to her low back, resulting in 51% permanent disability.

  The WCAB found that the vocational expert opinion supporting 100% permanent disability was substantial evidence, while the apportionment opinion of PQME Dr. Anderson was speculative and legally insufficient, leading to an amendment of the permanent disability rating to 100%.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7404188 · 2026-03-02 · Long Beach Office District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7contested claim that would entitle it to medical-legal reimbursement under sections 4620 and 4621, and the Colamonico en banc decision. In his Opinion, the WCJ states that the claim was not contested because defendant accepted applicant's claim of injury to the low back and the claim of psych was subject to the six-month rule. We disagree.

  The WCAB found that a contested claim existed at the time the medical-legal copy services were provided, contrary to the WCJ's finding that the claim was not contested because the low back injury was accepted and the psych claim was subject to the six-month rule. The WCAB emphasized that the denial of the psych claim and the nature of the Compromise & Release settlement showed the claim was contested, thus entitling cost petitioner to reimbursement.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11706407 · 2025-04-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that the record is clear as to whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion applies. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

  The WCAB found that the issues of jurisdiction and res judicata were not clearly resolved in the prior order and that reconsideration was necessary to fully study the factual and legal issues.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14365258 · 2024-10-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9We conclude, however, that the existing record does not adequately address the issue. The record offers conflicting opinions as to applicant's disability status, including the opinion of Dr. del Campo in both of his reports of February, 2021 that applicant could return to his usual work, but also deferring applicant's work status to the treating ophthalmologist at LLUMC. (Ex. 5, Report of Gabriel Martin del Campo, M.D., dated February 11, 2021, at p. 3; Ex. 4, Report of Gabriel Martin del Campo, M.D., dated February 25, 2021, at p. 3.) The record regarding assigned work restrictions and whether the employer was able to accommodate those restrictions is similarly ambiguous. While the December 20, 2022 report of QME Dr. Joseph posits the existence of work restrictions, none are identified with specificity. (Ex. 1, Report of Boban Joseph, M.D., dated December 20, 2022, at p.

  The record was found inadequate to fully address the temporary total disability claimed between November 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 due to conflicting medical opinions and lack of substantial medical evidence on disability status and work restrictions during that period.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10586171 · 2023-12-15 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, as set forth by the WCJ in his Report, the record regarding applicant's claimed injury to his left eye is not sufficient. Thus, as a matter of due process, further development of the record is appropriate. Applicant is admonished that he should obtain the additional evidence forthwith.

  The record was found insufficient to establish injury to the left eye; further development was ordered but applicant did not timely object to the specialist's report or timely file the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ13053362 · 2023-12-01 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, as quoted above, in his November 7, 2022 report, (referring to his July 15, 2022 report), Dr. Rutchik stated that in his January 27, 2022 report he had concluded that applicant's condition had reached MMI status "with 100% of his impairment attributed to the industrial activities; however, given his continued pain and difficulties, I would concur that the applicant is TTD at this time.... Therefore, I would opine that the applicant was TTD since at least February of 2022." (Joint Exh. 102, p. 11.) Clearly, Dr. Rutchik stated his conclusion but did not set forth the reasoning or the basis for his opinion. It appears that his only explanation for changing his previously stated opinion that applicant had reached MMI status was applicant's "continued pain and difficulties." However, "[a] temporary disability is an impairment reasonably expected to be cured or improved with proper medical treatment." (Signature Fruit Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.; Chavira v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

  Dr. Rutchik's reports lacked sufficient explanation and reasoning for his opinion that applicant was temporarily totally disabled since February 2022, thus not constituting substantial evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficient and remanded for further development.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11973646 · 2022-12-22 · Stockton District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Applicant who was 47 years old as of the date of injury, as a retail clerk, at Livermore, California, by Ralph Lauren, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her nervous system, back, spine, cardiovascular. 2. At the time of the injury, the employer's workers' compensation carrier was Safety National Casualty Corp. 3. Defendant has demonstrated panel #7411683 was not received. 4. Defendant's strike of Dr. Mahmoudi from panel #7411683 was timely. ORDER a) Defendant's strike of Dr. Mahmoudi from panel #7411683 was timely.

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant's strike of Dr. Mahmoudi was timely and that applicant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the strike being upheld.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10199818 · 2021-12-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION We previously granted applicant's Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant, appearing in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 21, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that based on the reports from orthopedic agreed medical examiner (AME) Yuri Falkinstein, M.D., applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, and bilateral wrists, that applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE to his lower extremities or his psyche, that applicant had been adequately c

  The WCJ and WCAB found substantial evidence in the AME Dr. Falkinstein's reports supporting injury AOE/COE to cervical, thoracic, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, and wrists, but not to lower extremities or psyche.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12677607 · 2021-05-27 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The court reviewed the documentary and testimonial evidence submitted by the parties and found applicant's testimony credible. The court also found the medical reports of Dr. Newman to be substantial medical evidence on the issue of injury AOE/COE and more persuasive than those of Dr. Stearns. Petitioner argues that no other medical provider in over a year of medical treatment, other than Dr. Newman, had come up with the diagnosis of cumulative trauma injury and asserts that Dr. Wedemeyer found no cumulative trauma injury in any of his treatment

  The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible and Dr. Newman's medical reports substantial and more persuasive than Dr. Stearns' reports, establishing compensable industrial cumulative trauma injury.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13725703 · 2021-05-14 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, the record shows that the WCJ held an MSC at which the parties failed to settle applicant's claim. However, based upon the matters discussed at the MSC, the WCJ determined that applicant's remaining benefits could not be administered under the jurisdiction of the WCAB and that his claim herein was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Report, pp. 2-3; see also Minutes, December 22, 2020, pp. 1-2.) Having determined these issues, the WCJ issued the NOI and the Order instead of obtaining a pretrial conference statement from the parties, framing the issues and stipulations for trial, and holding a hearing with respect to those issues.2 (Report, pp. 2-3.)

  The WCJ dismissed the case without a hearing, violating applicant's due process rights and improperly applying statute of limitations defenses without a hearing, contrary to WCAB rules prohibiting summary judgment procedures.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12495517 · 2025-12-05 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate except as noted below, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny reconsideration.

  The petition was timely filed and the Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and found no basis to grant reconsideration on the merits, including failure to prove industrial causation for claimed injuries and no penalty due for alleged delays.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15407478 · 2025-05-22 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal (Petition) challenges the Order Quashing Notice to Produce (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 19, 2025, wherein the WCJ quashed applicant's petition to compel the out-of-state adjuster to appear.

  The WCJ's Order Quashing Notice to Produce was an interlocutory, non-final order, so the petition for reconsideration was improper and dismissed. The petition was also moot because the Notice to Produce was no longer valid after the order and trial date passed. The defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal. The panel admonished the defendant and counsel for procedural violations and delays.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 16.

• MANNING KASS
• Manning & Kass
• MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
• MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
• MANNING & KASS
• Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP
• MANNING, & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TESTER LLP
• MANNING, KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
• MANNING & KASS, ELLROD RAMIREZ & TRESTER
• Manning & Kass, Ellrod Ramirez & Trester
• MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER
• MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TESTER

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.