Parker, Kern, Nard & Wenzel

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Permanent total disability2
• Psyche AOE/COE1
• QME/AME process1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Statute of limitations1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Fresno 10
• San Bernardino 1
• Stockton 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.

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

Counted over 10 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.

• ADJ3317169 · 2025-05-21 · Fresno District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that due to the combined effect of multiple injuries, applicant was not amenable to participate in vocational rehabilitation and was unable to compete in the open labor market and issued a joint and several award of 100% permanent total disability without apportionment.

  Applicant proved permanent total disability through medical and vocational evidence showing complete loss of earning capacity due to industrial injuries; defendant failed to prove apportionment of disability to non-industrial causes.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11248645 · 2023-08-31 · Fresno District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Labor Code section 4853 provides, "Whenever such disability of any such officer or employee continues for a period beyond one year, such member shall thereafter be subject as to disability indemnity to the provisions of this division other than Section 4850 during the remainder of the period of said disability or until the effective date of his retirement under the Public Employees' Retirement Act, and the leave of absence shall continue."

  The applicant is not entitled to temporary disability benefits for the second injury because Labor Code section 4853 bars temporary disability payments after the effective date of CalPERS industrial disability retirement, even if the injuries are from different dates but with the same governmental entity employer.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10011064 · 2022-12-30 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.17In applying the compulsory test above using the Rowland factors, we conclude that applicants' work here were voluntary. Preliminarily, we note that the parties here have not offered into evidence, nor have we found, a county ordinance that addresses the employment status of county inmates. As such, following the court in Pruitt, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d at pp. 552-553, and Parsons, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at pp. 638-639, above, we focus our analysis on the relationship between the inmates and the county.

  The Board found that the inmates were employees of the County of Fresno because they received extra visitation rights as consideration, which constituted sufficient consideration to support an employment relationship under existing case law.

  Official decision · page 17 →
• ADJ14125839 · 2022-06-30 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we concur with the WCJ's reasoning that the time limitations of AD Rule 46.2(b)(1) are applicable to this matter, and that the remedy of Rule 31.5(a)(2) of a replacement QME or panel of QMEs is available only where the 90 or 120-day time limitations of the

  Emergency Rule 46.2, enacted due to COVID, suspended the 60/90-day timeframes in 8 CCR 31.3(e) and replaced them with 90/120-day timeframes; the remedy of a replacement QME or panel under 31.5(a)(2) is available only if the 90/120-day limits are not met. Applicant did not show the QME was unavailable within these extended timeframes.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8129185 · 2022-03-09 · San Bernardino District OfficeStatute of limitationsmixed

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ issued Joint Findings of Fact on October 18, 2020, determining that applicants' claim for death benefits in Case No. ADJ8129185 (injury through December 1, 2011) was barred under Section 5406(b). (Finding of Fact No. 2). The WCJ further found that defendant failed in its burden of proof to establish that benefits were barred under Section 5406(b) in ADJ11011618 (May 4, 2016 injury) and in ADJ11011740 (injury through June 10, 2016). (Finding of Fact No. 5.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ observed that the application for adjudication of claim (death benefits) listed both Case Nos. ADJ11011618 and ADJ11011740, and because both of those cases were within the requisite one year of date of death and 240 weeks from date of injury, the application was timely filed as to those claimed injuries. The WCJ further determined section 5410 would not preclude applicant from seeking death benefits. (Finding of Fact No. 6.)

  The WCJ found that death benefits claim in ADJ8129185 was barred by section 5406(b) due to untimely filing, but claims in ADJ11011618 and ADJ11011740 were timely filed within 240 weeks and one year of death, and the WCAB affirmed this finding.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ3825055 · 2022-01-25 · Fresno District OfficePermanent total disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. Defendant, Affinity Insurance Limited, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on March 8, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injury to her back and left knee, ankle, foot, upper extremity and shoulder arising out of and in the course of her employment on July 11, 2011, as a truck driver by H&R Livestock Transportation, Inc., caused permanent total disability and need for further medical treatment. Defendant Affinity Insurance Limited, which insured the employer for workers' compensation liability at the time of the injury, contends in its petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant's injury caused permanent total disability. Applicant filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which he recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied. Subsequently, at our request the parties participated in a commissioners' settlement conference and agreed to resolve this matter by Compromise and Release.

  The WCJ found permanent total disability caused by the injury; defendant contested this finding; the matter was settled by Compromise and Release.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9920866 · 2021-12-24 · Fresno District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 21, 2019, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's injury did not arise out of or in the course of her employment (AOE/COE).

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's original decision lacked sufficient medical evidence to support the finding that the injury did not arise out of employment. The psychiatric QME's opinion was not substantial evidence due to misunderstanding of cumulative injury law. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to clarify events and obtain further medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9618682 · 2021-08-12 · Fresno District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13IV. We agree with applicant that the WCJ improperly failed to include the permanent impairment provided by the neurological QME Dr. Wang for headaches, disfigurement and right leg pain. However, with respect to the impairment rating Dr. Wang provided for her sleep disorder, the record does not reflect that applicant has pled injury AOE/COE for sleep dysfunction. (See Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, January 25, 2021, p. 2.) Due process requires that defendant be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before an award for injury AOE/COE in the form of sleep dysfunction or an increased permanent disability rating for sleep may be made. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157- 158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805], citing Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Baskin) (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21].) Moreover, Dr. Wang's reporting attributed applicant's sleep disorder to chronic pain. Per section 4660.1(c), applicant may not receive an increased impairment rating for her sleep disorder since it was considered a compensable consequence of her physical injury. In conclusion, we will rescind the F&A and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The WCAB agreed with applicant that the WCJ improperly excluded impairment ratings for headaches, disfigurement and right leg pain from the neurological QME Dr. Wang, but excluded sleep disorder impairment because sleep was not pled as a body part and is considered a compensable consequence of physical injury.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• 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 →
• ADJ6852132 · 2022-12-22 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2The petition in this matter was filed on October 24, 2022. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's September 22, 2022 decision and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.

  The petition for reconsideration was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision, making it untimely and depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider it.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13319350 · 2021-04-22 · Fresno 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

  The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the defendant did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, 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.

• PARKER, KERN, NARD & WENZEL
• PARKER KERN NARD & WENZEL
• Parker, Kern, Nard & Wenzel

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.