What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review
Petition for reconsideration granted, final decision deferred pending further review
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ found that the present counsel Ronald Nolan did not timely file the required disclosure statement under Labor Code section 4906(e), precluding him from receiving attorney fees under Labor Code section 4906(i). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review this issue and deferred the final decision.
From the decision · page 4Trial on the issue of division of attorney's fees was initially held on October 26, 2023. The issue of compliance with Labor Code § 4906 (e) was bifurcated and was the sole [issue] heard at that time. On January 16, 2024 findings of fact issued in which it was found that Attorney Ronald Ehrman filed a disclosure statement with the appeals board on May 20, 1998 which substantially complied with the requirements of the 1998 version of Labor Code § 4906 (e), that Attorney Ronald Nolan filed a document entitled "DISCLOSURE STATEMENT" with the appeals board on October 29, 2018 which did not comply with the requirements of the 2018 version of Labor Code § 4906 (e), and that Attorney Ronald Nolan filed a disclosure statement with the appeals board on October 16, 2023 (approximately 2 1/2 years after the compromise and release in this matter was approved) which complied with the requirements of the 2018 version of Labor Code § 4906 (e).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Ronald Nolan did not file a compliant disclosure statement until October 16, 2023, about 2 1/2 years after the compromise and release was approved.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure precludes him from receiving attorney fees under Labor Code section 4906(i).
From the decision · page 7On January 16, 2024, findings of fact issued in which it was found that Attorney Ronald Nolan did not file a written disclosure form promulgated by the administrative director until approximately 2 1/2 years after the compromise and release in this matter was approved. Any claim by Nolan to a portion of the fee ordered to be held by defendants would necessarily be based upon services Nolan contends he performed prior to issuance of the order approving compromise and release, and more than 2 1/2 years prior to Nolan's required filing of the disclosure form. Thus, pursuant to Labor Code § 4906 (i) this WCJ is precluded from allowing a fee to Nolan for those services. On the other hand, attorney Ronald Ehrman filed the required disclosure statement with the appeals board on May 20, 1998. His representation of the applicant continued for over 20 years, through approximately October 29, 2018. His claim to a portion of the fees ordered held by defendants would be based upon services he contends he performed during the more than 20 years between the time he filed the required disclosure statement and the time the compromise and release was approved.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4906
Labor Code section 4906(i) precludes payment of attorney fees to counsel who did not timely file a disclosure statement as required by section 4906(e).
Applied to bar payment of fees to Ronald Nolan due to late filing of disclosure statement.
From the decision · page 7On January 16, 2024, findings of fact issued in which it was found that Attorney Ronald Nolan did not file a written disclosure form promulgated by the administrative director until approximately 2 1/2 years after the compromise and release in this matter was approved. Any claim by Nolan to a portion of the fee ordered to be held by defendants would necessarily be based upon services Nolan contends he performed prior to issuance of the order approving compromise and release, and more than 2 1/2 years prior to Nolan's required filing of the disclosure form. Thus, pursuant to Labor Code § 4906 (i) this WCJ is precluded from allowing a fee to Nolan for those services. On the other hand, attorney Ronald Ehrman filed the required disclosure statement with the appeals board on May 20, 1998. His representation of the applicant continued for over 20 years, through approximately October 29, 2018. His claim to a portion of the fees ordered held by defendants would be based upon services he contends he performed during the more than 20 years between the time he filed the required disclosure statement and the time the compromise and release was approved.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Failure of Ronald Nolan to file a compliant disclosure statement until October 16, 2023, approximately 2 1/2 years after the compromise and release was approved
From the decision · page 7On January 16, 2024, findings of fact issued in which it was found that Attorney Ronald Nolan did not file a written disclosure form promulgated by the administrative director until approximately 2 1/2 years after the compromise and release in this matter was approved. Any claim by Nolan to a portion of the fee ordered to be held by defendants would necessarily be based upon services Nolan contends he performed prior to issuance of the order approving compromise and release, and more than 2 1/2 years prior to Nolan's required filing of the disclosure form. Thus, pursuant to Labor Code § 4906 (i) this WCJ is precluded from allowing a fee to Nolan for those services. On the other hand, attorney Ronald Ehrman filed the required disclosure statement with the appeals board on May 20, 1998. His representation of the applicant continued for over 20 years, through approximately October 29, 2018. His claim to a portion of the fees ordered held by defendants would be based upon services he contends he performed during the more than 20 years between the time he filed the required disclosure statement and the time the compromise and release was approved.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.