Fellman & Associates

What they litigate

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

• Statute of limitations3
• AOE/COE1
• Earnings / average weekly earnings1
• Psyche AOE/COE1
• Permanent total disability1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 3
• Marina del Rey 1
• San Francisco 1
• Santa Barbara 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
• 2 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.

• ADJ19403295 · 2026-06-08 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, the record is not fully developed and the WCJ's decision was not based on substantial evidence. We grant KForce's Petition as one seeking reconsideration, rescind the March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The WCJ's March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact on date of injury and statute of limitations were rescinded due to insufficient substantial evidence and incomplete record development.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ10985531 · 2024-09-04 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the QME did not complete a Rolda analysis. The QME simply stated that predominant industrial causation existed. That is not sufficient to determine whether applicant's psychological injury is industrial and whether defendant met its burden of proof to establish substantial causation from lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. The QME must discuss each category of stress. For example, here, it appears that applicant was stressed with the changes in her workload, interactions with her supervisor, and being placed on a performance improvement plan.3 We do not suggest these are the only categories. That is a determination the QME must make and the QME must assign causation to each category of stress, which caused applicant's psychological injury.

  The WCJ's original decision lacked a proper Rolda analysis by the QME psychiatrist, who did not break down the categories of stress and causation as required, leaving no basis to find the injury non-industrial. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's order and remanded for further proceedings to obtain a Rolda-compliant medical opinion.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15313468 · 2023-11-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, while applicant knew that he had symptoms, defendant has not met its burden to show that he knew that his injury was job-related until he was seen by primary treating physician (PTP) Dr. Rubanenko on October 26, 2021. (Ex. C, Report by Gabriel Rubanenko, M.D., dated 10/26/21, p. 16.) Therefore, the date of injury is October 26, 2021, the date when applicant first became aware that his disability was industrial after the examination by Dr. Rubanenko. We observe that in cases involving cumulative trauma injuries, the date of injury pursuant to section 5412 "also sets the date for the measurement of compensation payable, and all other incidents of the [worker's] right[s]." (Argonaut Mining Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 27, 31.)

  The WCAB found the date of injury to be October 26, 2021, when applicant first knew his disability was industrial, and that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations or as a post-termination claim.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12896538 · 2022-09-16 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant, while employed during the period 6/24/2010 to 6/24/2011 as a Production Control Expeditor for The Boeing Company, claims to have sustained industrial injuries to her neck, back, hernia, ears, shoulders, left hip and nervous system/stress (psyche) arising out of and in the course of her employment.

  Applicant failed to file the claim within the statutory time period and did not provide evidence to overcome the statute of limitations bar.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10254909 · 2025-10-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.42. Removal Removal 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ ordered applicant to appear at an evaluation. The trial judge issued this order without creating a record or explaining the need for the order and thus, the order violates the parties' right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case. Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab.

  The WCJ's order compelling attendance at evaluation was issued without creating a record or explaining the need, violating due process and causing irreparable harm, thus removal was proper.

  Official decision · page 4 →

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.

• FELLMAN & ASSOCIATES
• Fellman & Associates
• Fellman and Associates

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.