Rucka O'Boyle Lombardo McKenna

What they litigate

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

• Permanent disability rating1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141
• Reopening / new and further disability1

Where they appear

• Salinas 6

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.

• 3 for the defense
• 1 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

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.

• ADJ9166594 · 2023-07-14 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on June 6, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on October 12, 2013, as a registered nurse by defendant, Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, permissibly self-insured for workers' compensation liability, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her lumbar spine, psyche, and excretory system, resulting in permanent partial disability of 28%.

  The WCJ found 28% permanent partial disability; applicant contended it should be greater and challenged overpayment credit; the Board remanded for further consideration due to settlement.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ4316583 · 2022-05-09 · Salinas District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814mixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of March 2, 2022, wherein it was found that "Interest was payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula from the date of the Order issued on 2/22/21 until paid on 2/25/21" (Finding No. 5), "A penalty under [Labor Code] section 5814 is payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula on the unpaid interest" (Finding No. 6), and "A reasonable attorney's fee per [Labor Code] section 5814.5 is payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula...." (Finding No. 7.)

  The WCJ found interest payable from 2/22/21 to 2/25/21 and penalties under Labor Code section 5814 and attorney fees under section 5814.5. The WCAB denied applicant's petition for reconsideration but granted defendant's petition, finding defendant had genuine doubt about liability and did not unreasonably refuse payment, thus no penalties or attorney fees under these sections were warranted.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8177678 · 2021-05-03 · Salinas District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Applying these principles to the facts of this case, applicant's psychiatric condition qualifies as "new and further disability." While applicant unquestionably had psychiatric symptoms at the time of the earlier 2014 award, it was not until 2016 that applicant's symptoms progressed to the point of her obtaining treatment for them from a psychologist, Dr. Johnson. Applicant's history to Dr. Laasi of what occurred in her psychological state after the 2014 award is what Dr. Rose described as an "intensification of symptoms" and fits what the Nicky Blair Court included as a "demonstrable change in an employee's condition....A gradual increase in disability... [or]...A change in physical condition necessitating further medical treatment."

  Applicant's psychiatric condition intensified after the 2014 award, with formal diagnosis and treatment only occurring after that date, meeting the standard for new and further disability.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12557876 · 2025-05-12 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal filed August 2, 2024, of the minutes of hearing issued on July 16, 2024, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.1

  Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner and therefore dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12080649 · 2024-01-12 · Salinas 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 WCAB panel found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to petitioner if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11006885 · 2021-12-13 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions,

  The WCJ's order was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed; removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  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.

• RUCKA O'BOYLE LOMBARDO MCKENNA
• LAW OFFICES OF RUCKA, O'BOYLE, LOMBARDO & MCKENNA
• RUCKA, O'BOYLE, LOMBARDO & MCKENNA
• RUCKA, O'BOYLE LOMBARDO & MCKENNA
• RUCKA O'BOYLE ET AL

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.