Ratto Law Firm

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 9
• Sacramento 6
• Stockton 2
• Salinas 1
• San Francisco 1
• San Jose 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.

• 15 for the applicant
• 4 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 20 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.

• ADJ9823240 · 2025-08-18 · Oakland District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7(3) If the earnings are at an irregular rate, such as piecework, or on a commission basis, or are specified to be by week, month, or other period, then the average weekly earnings mentioned in subdivision (a) shall be taken as the actual weekly earnings averaged for this period of time, not exceeding one year, as may conveniently be taken to determine an average weekly rate of pay. (4) Where the employment is for less than 30 hours per week, or where for any reason the foregoing methods of arriving at the average weekly earnings cannot reasonably and fairly be applied, the average weekly earnings shall be taken at 100 percent of the sum which reasonably represents the average weekly earning capacity of the injured employee at the time of his or her injury, due consideration being given to his or her actual earnings from all sources and employments. Defendant's proffered Defendant's Exhibit B, Social Security Earnings Records, but provided no corresponding testimony or evidence to show how much of the prior year applicant had actually worked.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ9770624 · 2025-06-09 · Oakland District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, as stated in the Report, Dr. Homes's reporting of October 14, 2023 indicated that applicant had yet to reach maximal improvement and his subsequent reporting adequately explained his assessment of WPI at 11% in light of applicant having reached maximal medical improvement.

  Dr. Holmes's reports were found to be based on pertinent facts, adequate examination and history, and set forth reasoning in support of conclusions, constituting substantial medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10342642 · 2024-10-28 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant have filed separate petitions for reconsideration with regard to a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award and Order of August 6, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed on May 13, 2015 as a foreman, applicant sustained industrial injury to the head, eyes, vision, face, jaw, chin and mouth causing permanent disability of 70%. It was also found that "the violent act exception [to not including psychiatric permanent disability as a compensable consequence to a physical injury] applies pursuant to Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(A)." Although there was no finding of psychiatric injury, psychiatric permanent disability was included in the calculation of overall permanent disability.

  The WCJ included psychiatric permanent disability in the overall permanent disability calculation under the violent act exception, but the Appeals Board found the record needed further development and reanalysis in light of the en banc decision in Vigil v. County of Kern (2024).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10519245 · 2024-10-23 · San Jose District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 25, 2024 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an aide/substitute teacher on June 15, 2016, sustained industrial injury to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, and in the form of headaches. The WCJ found in relevant part that applicant sustained permanent disability subject to nonindustrial apportionment, and that applicant was entitled to future medical care to the head/headaches, but not to the thoracic spine or bilateral knees.

  The Board concluded that the applicant's right to future medical care was not abrogated and granted entitlement to future medical care for the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, and head.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11348013 · 2024-08-22 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based upon Applicant's credible testimony, the treatment records, and the findings by QME Dr. McGahan, it is found that Applicant sustained injury to his right shoulder arising out of and occurring in the course of employment on July 25, 2017.

  The WCJ found applicant sustained industrial injury to the right shoulder on July 25, 2017, based on credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. McGahan, despite defendant's challenge to evidence admission and applicant credibility.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10380421 · 2024-02-29 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, defendant has not met its burden of proving that the employee knew or should have known his disability was caused by his employment. (Johnson, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 471.) We will therefore rescind the F&O and substitute new findings deferring the issue of the date of injury per section 5412. Moreover, given our conclusion that applicant did not possess the knowledge required under section 5412 prior to July 28, 2017, and because applicant commenced proceedings for the collection of benefits less than one year later on November 3, 2017, we will find that compensation is not barred by section 5405. Because the underlying decision did not reach the issue of injury arising out of and in the course of employment, we will defer the issue. Finally, given that no party has challenged the WCJ's determinations regarding the claimed specific dates of injury, we will find that applicant did not sustain a specific injury to his low back on January 30, 2016 or on February 1, 2016.

  Applicant did not have the knowledge required under section 5412 prior to July 28, 2017, and commenced proceedings less than one year later, so compensation is not barred by section 5405.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ11969555 · 2023-12-22 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9This case turns on the question of whether or not it has been established by a preponderance of the evidence (California Labor Code section 3202.5) that the notice of cancellation in question (Norguard Exhibit 3) was in fact mailed. There is evidence that it was, but in light of the questions apparent from both the document offered as the documentary evidence in support of the requisite mailing, as well as the questions raised by the depth, or lack thereof, of the understanding of the

  The evidence presented lacked substantiality to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the notice of cancellation was mailed as required by law and policy.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ9553015 · 2023-07-17 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Here, as explained in the Opinion on Decision, both of the AMEs recommended adding the impairments for applicant's tinnitus, headaches, dizziness, cognitive dysfunction and psyche to the impairments for the cervical and lumbar spine. Further, both doctors explained that this would produce the most accurate rating. (Exhibit D at p. 15; Exhibit F at p. 4; Exhibit R at pp. 2-3.) Their recommendations were followed because their opinions constituted substantial evidence and there was nothing in the evidentiary file that would constitute good cause to set aside their determinations. (Power, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d 782.)

  Both AMEs recommended adding impairments for tinnitus, headaches, dizziness, cognitive dysfunction, and psyche to cervical and lumbar spine impairments, supported by substantial evidence. Defendant's arguments regarding compensability and rating method were rejected. Applicant's credible testimony and vocational evidence supported 100% disability.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ11056989 · 2022-01-18 · Stockton District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8After review of the evidence, the Court finds Ratto Law is liable to lien claimant for 60% percent of the attorney fees awarded and received, under the Stipulated Award.

  The WCJ considered the totality of itemizations, descriptions of services, and stipulated periods of representation, finding the division of attorney fees supported by evidence and legal standards.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2021-11-29 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the record does not contain substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; see McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Therefore, it is the decision after reconsideration to rescind the F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the record so that all stipulations, issues, and evidence as to lien claimant's liens5 may be identified in the record, and so that all issues may be fully adjudicated.

  The WCJ's decision was rescinded and the matter returned to the trial level for further proceedings due to lack of a sufficient record, no hearing or trial, and the prohibition against summary adjudication in workers' compensation cases.

• ADJ9105305 · 2021-09-07 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings & Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 24, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part applicant's August 6, 2013, industrial injury caused 92% permanent disability.

  The WCAB panel found substantial evidence in the reports and testimony of psychiatric AME Dr. Ann Allen supporting the addition rather than combination of orthopedic and psychiatric disability ratings, based on the distinct body parts affected and the synergistic effect of the disabilities.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11965648 · 2021-06-18 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Everest National Insurance seeks removal of the Order Denying Joinder (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 2, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ denied defendant's Petition for Joinder to join Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance (Berkshire) as a party defendant. The Petition was denied because applicant pled the claim as a specific injury, although the parties stipulated in the settlement agreement that the claim was a cumulative trauma injury.

  The parties stipulated that the injury was cumulative trauma, allowing amendment of the claim and joinder of Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance as a party defendant. The WCJ erred in denying the joinder.

  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.

• RATTO LAW FIRM
• Ratto Law Firm
• RATTO LAW
• RATTO LAW FIRM, P.C.
• Ratto 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.