Mastagni Holstedt

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Sacramento 26
• Stockton 6
• Redding 4
• Oakland 3
• Lodi 1
• Riverside 1
• San Bernardino 1
• Santa Rosa 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.

• 19 for the defense
• 18 for the applicant
• 7 returned for more record

Counted over 41 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.

• ADJ19531062 · 2026-06-08 · Sacramento District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6as defendant failed to check off the box next to the language, we agree with the WCJ that defendant failed to meet its burden of proof as to the application of the statute of limitations. By checking off the boxes of some language but not others, applicant was not properly and clearly made aware of how to obtain an evaluation by a qualified medical evaluator (QME) as required by AD Rule 9812 and as a result, the statute of limitations was tolled.

  Defendant failed to comply with the required notice language under AD Rule 9812(e)(3)(A)(2), resulting in tolling of the statute of limitations and estoppel from raising the defense.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14177811 · 2025-12-31 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order (F&O) issued on September 29, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to his throat in the form of throat cancer and that defendant failed to rebut the presumption of compensability pursuant to Labor Code section 3212.1(d).2 Defendant contends that the medical evidence demonstrates non-industrial human papilloma virus (HPV) solely caused applicant to develop his throat cancer, thereby rebutting the section 3212.1(d) presumption.

  The Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his throat in the form of throat cancer and that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 3212.1(d). The defendant's medical evidence, including QME Dr. Mahmoudi's opinion, did not meet the burden to establish no reasonable link between the carcinogen exposure and the cancer, as absence of medical literature alone is insufficient to rebut the presumption.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11008409 · 2025-12-09 · Sacramento District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Based on our review, we agree with the WCJ that the record contains substantial medical evidence that applicant sustained a cumulative injury AOE/COE to his right foot/ankle, left foot/ankle, lumbar spine, right hip and left hip. However, October 13, 2020, when both parties had knowledge that there was substantial medical evidence of cumulative injury, is the proper date of injury pursuant to section 5412, and whether the statute of limitations had elapsed pursuant to section 5405(a) is based on that date of injury. Defendant is mistaken where it contends that only applicant had knowledge on that date. Applicant proved defendant had knowledge of his injury based on the reporting of Dr. McGahan addressed to both parties as early as October 13, 2020 or as late as May 26, 2021, when defendant deposed Dr. McGahan, either event being sufficient to trigger defendant's duty of notification, thereby tolling the statute of limitations. (See Exhibits 3 and 9.) There is no evidence in the record that defendant met its duty of notification to applicant. Thus, we also agree with the WCJ that defendant did not meet its burden, and applicant's injury claim is not barred by the statute of limitations defense.

  The Appeals Board found that the proper date of injury under section 5412 is October 13, 2020, when both parties had knowledge of the cumulative injury, and that defendant failed to meet its duty to notify applicant, tolling the statute of limitations and preventing the claim from being barred.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9170309 · 2025-11-03 · Santa Rosa District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 25, 2025 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant's injuries were not caused by the serious and willful misconduct of the employer and that applicant's injuries were not the result of the employer's violation of any statute or safety order.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found no evidence that the employer or its managing representative acted with serious and willful misconduct causing the injury, and no violation of safety orders was a proximate cause of the accident.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9468922 · 2025-08-11 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree with the WCJ that applicant met his prima facia burden to prove that the presumption pursuant to section 3212.1 applies based on the preponderance of the evidence (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705), i.e., that he was a firefighter, that he was exposed to a known carcinogen, and that he developed prostate cancer. We note that panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Thomas Allems, M.D., stated that it was indisputable that firefighters are exposed to carcinogens in smoke and post-fire gasses (Report of Dr. Allems, 1/17/15, at pp. 6-7, Exhibit B) and that there is "limited evidence" of association between cadmium and arsenic with prostate cancer (id. at p. 4, emphasis in original). We also note

  The WCAB found that the applicant met the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 3212.1 for prostate cancer as a firefighter and that the defense PQME's contrary opinion was not substantial evidence due to incorrect legal theory and internal inconsistencies.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12772997 · 2024-10-04 · Sacramento District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration we will amend the January 13, 2021 Findings to add that applicant was employed by DGS on November 3, 2008 (Finding 1) and to defer the issue of the statute of limitations (Finding 2), and otherwise affirm the Findings.

  The Appeals Board deferred the statute of limitations issue to the WCJ for further factual findings due to lack of evidence on whether benefits were last provided by the employer or through retirement medical insurance.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11099036 · 2024-07-08 · Sacramento District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here the QME's reporting does not adequately address causation of applicant's psychological injury. The QME initially opined that applicant's psychological injury was caused by her 2017 injury, however, applicant sustained two injuries in 2017, a specific and a cumulative. The QME failed to address which 2017 injury caused the psychological sequala. The QME's opinion on causation was conclusory, without explanation, and failed to comply with the specific requirements of Rolda. The WCJ's decision to assign disability to one of the 2017 injuries and not the other was not based upon substantial evidence.

  The QME's psychiatric injury causation opinion was conclusory, failed to comply with Rolda requirements, and did not provide substantial evidence to support the WCJ's finding of compensable psychiatric injury; therefore, the decision was rescinded and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ15495990 · 2024-06-24 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 4, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that during the period ending April 23, 2021, applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the head (in the form of headaches), the back, or to the neck, and thus ordered that applicant take nothing.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the medical opinions of AME Dr. Stark and AME Dr. Gupta were substantial evidence supporting no compensable cumulative trauma injury arising out of employment. Applicant failed to provide credible evidence to rebut these opinions.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11262036 · 2024-01-05 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 13, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, right shoulder, and right wrist, that the injury caused 27% permanent disability, and that applicant is entitled to future medical care for his right wrist and right shoulder.

  The WCJ found 27% permanent disability caused by the injury, and the Board denied reconsideration of this finding based on substantial evidence including the AME reports.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16043082 · 2023-12-18 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The effect of a presumption affecting the burden of proof is to impose upon the party against whom it operates the burden of proof as to the nonexistence of the presumed fact. (Evidence Code section 606; City of Long Beach v. WCAB (Garcia) 126 Cal. App. 4th 298, 314.) Once the facts giving rise to the presumption of industrial injury have been proven, the burden of negating the presumption falls on the employer. The defendant must establish that the COVID 19 illness did not arise out of and in the course of employment. To do that, the defendant must show

  The employer failed to provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption that the applicant's COVID-19 infection arose out of and in the course of employment, as the PQME supported industrial causation and employer witnesses' testimony was insufficient to exclude non-Shasta County exposures.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ7085341 · 2023-12-04 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact, Award and Orders of September 14, 2023, wherein, as relevant to the instant Petition, it was found in case ADJ70853411 that "The applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his bilateral hips, circulatory/heart/high blood pressure" and "Applicant sustained no new and further disability against the [sic] City of Stockton." In case ADJ7699285, it was found that "Applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his left hip."2 In these matters, in a Stipulated Award of November 1, 2011, it was found that during a cumulative period ending July 31, 2006 in case ADJ7085341, while employed as a code enforcement officer, applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, causing permanent disability of 8%. In a concurrently issued Stipulated Award in case ADJ7699285, it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending September 14, 2009, applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, causing permanent disability of 6%.3 On January 15, 2014, applicant filed a Petition to Reopen.4

  The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his bilateral hips, relying heavily on the AME Dr. Renbaum's opinions and deposition testimony, which were found reasonable and persuasive.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10659089 · 2023-11-13 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3In her June 11, 2021 report, Dr. Bassett discusses decedent's psychological distress, emotional downward spiral, and emotional symptoms. (Board Exhibit X.)....[However], Dr. Bassett does not opine that any of decedent's symptoms met any of the diagnostic criteria for a disorder. Dr. Bassett mentions emotions in her reporting, but does not provide a formal diagnosis of any psychiatric condition which caused either disability or a need for treatment....No medical evidence was offered to substantiate that decedent had a diagnosed psychiatric injury. Without a psychiatric diagnosis, there is no industrial injury pursuant to Labor Code Section 3208.3(a) and therefore, decedent's suicide cannot be found to be a compensable consequence.

  The WCJ's denial was based on lack of a formal psychiatric diagnosis by the AME, Dr. Bassett, and insufficient medical evidence to establish industrial injury. The WCAB found the medical evidence incomplete and insufficient to support the denial, granting reconsideration and remanding for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
• Mastagni Holstedt
• MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A.P.C.
• MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, APC
• Paul T. Dolberg - Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C.
• Stuart Woo of Mastagni Holstedt
• MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT & CHIURAZZI
• Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C.
• Mastagni Holstedt, APC
• MASTAGNI & HOLSTEDT

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.