California WCABLaw firm

The Nitka Firm

The Nitka Firm is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to Reopening / new and further disability (2), Statute of limitations (2) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Marina del Rey, then Los Angeles.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 4

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Marina del Rey 3
Los Angeles 2
Anaheim 1
Van Nuys 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.

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

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ17306191 · 2026-05-18 · Marina Del Rey District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact & Order of February 18, 2026 wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending December 16, 2022, applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche. In so finding, the WCJ found that defendant failed in its burden of showing that applicant's psychiatric injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (h).) Although the WCJ found that defendant proved that 25 percent of applicant's injury was caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions, this fell short of the statutory minimum of 35%. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(3).)
The WCJ found that the defendant failed to prove that the personnel actions, including the July 22, 2022 probationary release/demotion, were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith, which is required to sustain the Labor Code section 3208.3(h) defense. The WCAB panel adopted this reasoning and denied the defendant's petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10379948 · 2024-01-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration we issued on October 9, 2023, wherein we1 rescinded the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings that (1) applicant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations provided by Labor Code section 5405; (2) defendant is not estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense; and (3) there is no good cause to set aside the order dismissing applicant's claim; and we returned the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our decision.
The panel found that the prior decision rescinding the WCJ's findings on statute of limitations and estoppel was correct, and that the matter should be returned to the trial level for further development of the record on employment and statute of limitations defenses.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10379948 · 2023-10-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.14We conclude that the record is insufficient to ascertain the WCJ's reasons or grounds for finding that no good cause exists to reopen the claim. Accordingly, we conclude that the finding should be rescinded and the matter returned to the trial level for development of the record as to the issue of whether good cause exists to reopen the claim.
The record was insufficient to ascertain the WCJ's reasons for denying good cause; the finding was rescinded and remanded for further development.
Official decision · page 14 →
ADJ8075348 · 2022-12-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed
Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on April 30, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that the RFA for 84 hours a week of home health assistance dated January 15, 2019 was timely non-certified as was the September 7, 2020 RFA, and that the Patterson decision did not apply to this case to authorize ongoing services pursuant to a Stipulated Agreement by the parties dated July 10, 2018.
The WCJ found the RFAs were timely non-certified, but the petitioner contended the Utilization Reviews were untimely; the parties ultimately resolved the dispute by stipulation, which the WCAB approved.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13449688 · 2022-11-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Based on the entire record, Applicant and Juan Vega were employees of Roy A. Barile, Jonette L. Barile and John J. Barile on 7/11/2020. Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of employment.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ15061583 · 2024-11-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on August 27, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained injury to the lumbar spine on December 29, 2019, and that applicant was employed by defendant at the time of injury.
The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13445560 · 2022-08-24 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on July 11, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.
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.

NITKA FIRM
The Nitka Firm
NITKA LAW FIRM
THE NITKA FIRM

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 →

The Nitka Firm

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the applicant

3 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ17306191 · 2026-05-18 · Marina Del Rey District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact & Order of February 18, 2026 wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending December 16, 2022, applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche. In so finding, the WCJ found that defendant failed in its burden of showing that applicant's psychiatric injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (h).) Although the WCJ found that defendant proved that 25 percent of applicant's injury was caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions, this fell short of the statutory minimum of 35%. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(3).)

The WCJ found that the defendant failed to prove that the personnel actions, including the July 22, 2022 probationary release/demotion, were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith, which is required to sustain the Labor Code section 3208.3(h) defense. The WCAB panel adopted this reasoning and denied the defendant's petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10379948 · 2024-01-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration we issued on October 9, 2023, wherein we1 rescinded the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings that (1) applicant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations provided by Labor Code section 5405; (2) defendant is not estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense; and (3) there is no good cause to set aside the order dismissing applicant's claim; and we returned the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our decision.

The panel found that the prior decision rescinding the WCJ's findings on statute of limitations and estoppel was correct, and that the matter should be returned to the trial level for further development of the record on employment and statute of limitations defenses.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10379948 · 2023-10-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.14We conclude that the record is insufficient to ascertain the WCJ's reasons or grounds for finding that no good cause exists to reopen the claim. Accordingly, we conclude that the finding should be rescinded and the matter returned to the trial level for development of the record as to the issue of whether good cause exists to reopen the claim.

The record was insufficient to ascertain the WCJ's reasons for denying good cause; the finding was rescinded and remanded for further development.

Official decision · page 14 →

ADJ8075348 · 2022-12-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on April 30, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that the RFA for 84 hours a week of home health assistance dated January 15, 2019 was timely non-certified as was the September 7, 2020 RFA, and that the Patterson decision did not apply to this case to authorize ongoing services pursuant to a Stipulated Agreement by the parties dated July 10, 2018.

The WCJ found the RFAs were timely non-certified, but the petitioner contended the Utilization Reviews were untimely; the parties ultimately resolved the dispute by stipulation, which the WCAB approved.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13449688 · 2022-11-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Based on the entire record, Applicant and Juan Vega were employees of Roy A. Barile, Jonette L. Barile and John J. Barile on 7/11/2020. Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of employment.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ15061583 · 2024-11-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on August 27, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained injury to the lumbar spine on December 29, 2019, and that applicant was employed by defendant at the time of injury.

The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, denying the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13445560 · 2022-08-24 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on July 11, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →