California WCABLaw firm

Novey Law Group

Novey Law Group is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2024. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Permanent total disability (1) and Statute of limitations (1). They were heard most often at Sacramento, then Oakland. The firm it meets most often is Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen (2).

Decisions: 6
Years: 2021–2024
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 5 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

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Sacramento 5
Oakland 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.

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

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ11296458 · 2024-11-04 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Given the disparity of the medical opinions in the record and questions regarding whether the medical opinions utilized the correct legal standard, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the record and decision. In the further proceedings, if the parties cannot agree to an agreed medical evaluator, the WCJ should consider appointing an independent medical evaluator (Lab. Code, § 5701.)
The WCAB found the medical record insufficient and the medical opinions conflicting regarding the compensability of the left knee injury and the permanent disability rating, warranting further development and reconsideration.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ17110321 · 2023-12-18 · Sacramento District OfficeStatute of limitationsdeferred
Determinative passage · p.4For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the September 28, 2023 Findings of Fact, Award, and Order is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the September 28, 2023, Findings of Fact, Award, and Order is AFFIRMED except that it is AMENDED as follows: 9. The issue of the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is deferred. 10. The issue of whether applicant's claim for a cumulative trauma injury to the low back through December 3, 2021 is barred by the statute of limitations is deferred.
The record lacked sufficient medical evidence to determine the date of injury and whether the statute of limitations barred the claim; further record development was ordered.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10757289 · 2021-10-29 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant City of San Jose, permissibly self-insured, seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award, issued August 24, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a police officer, sustained industrial cumulative trauma injuries over the period ending November 16, 2016, to his back, and over the period ending January 19, 2017, in the form of basal cell carcinoma (neck), squamous cell carcinoma (left upper arm), cancer of the bladder, retrograde ejaculations, sleep disturbance, and tinnitus. The WCJ found the injuries caused permanent total disability, finding applicant rebutted the scheduled rating based on vocational evidence.
The WCJ found applicant credible and relied on the AME Dr. Duncan's medical opinion based on applicant's subjective symptoms and vocational expert Frank Diaz's opinion, concluding applicant is permanently totally disabled due to bladder cancer and related impairments, supported by substantial evidence despite lack of urodynamic testing.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15621205 · 2022-08-10 · Sacramento 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 found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13899113 · 2022-01-31 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, 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.

NOVEY LAW GROUP
Novey Law Group
NOVEY LAW

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 →

Novey Law Group

Decisions

Years

2021–2024

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

2 for the defense

2 returned for more record

1 for the applicant

Counted over 5 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.

ADJ11296458 · 2024-11-04 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Given the disparity of the medical opinions in the record and questions regarding whether the medical opinions utilized the correct legal standard, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the record and decision. In the further proceedings, if the parties cannot agree to an agreed medical evaluator, the WCJ should consider appointing an independent medical evaluator (Lab. Code, § 5701.)

The WCAB found the medical record insufficient and the medical opinions conflicting regarding the compensability of the left knee injury and the permanent disability rating, warranting further development and reconsideration.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ17110321 · 2023-12-18 · Sacramento District OfficeStatute of limitationsdeferred

Determinative passage · p.4For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the September 28, 2023 Findings of Fact, Award, and Order is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the September 28, 2023, Findings of Fact, Award, and Order is AFFIRMED except that it is AMENDED as follows: 9. The issue of the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is deferred. 10. The issue of whether applicant's claim for a cumulative trauma injury to the low back through December 3, 2021 is barred by the statute of limitations is deferred.

The record lacked sufficient medical evidence to determine the date of injury and whether the statute of limitations barred the claim; further record development was ordered.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10757289 · 2021-10-29 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant City of San Jose, permissibly self-insured, seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award, issued August 24, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a police officer, sustained industrial cumulative trauma injuries over the period ending November 16, 2016, to his back, and over the period ending January 19, 2017, in the form of basal cell carcinoma (neck), squamous cell carcinoma (left upper arm), cancer of the bladder, retrograde ejaculations, sleep disturbance, and tinnitus. The WCJ found the injuries caused permanent total disability, finding applicant rebutted the scheduled rating based on vocational evidence.

The WCJ found applicant credible and relied on the AME Dr. Duncan's medical opinion based on applicant's subjective symptoms and vocational expert Frank Diaz's opinion, concluding applicant is permanently totally disabled due to bladder cancer and related impairments, supported by substantial evidence despite lack of urodynamic testing.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15621205 · 2022-08-10 · Sacramento 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 found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13899113 · 2022-01-31 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →