California WCABLaw firm
Gimbel Law Firm
Gimbel Law Firm is named in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Jurisdiction / venue (1) and QME/AME process (1). They were heard most often at San Francisco, then Oakland. The firm it meets most often is Chavez & Breault (2).
- Decisions
- 10
- Years
- 2022–2026
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 3
Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 10 of 10 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 10 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.
- ADJ14478546 · 2026-03-09 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.8Here, the WCJ's February 2, 2023 findings did not comply with the requirement in section 5313 that the WCJ "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy." (Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(c)(5); Blackledge, supra, 75 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621.) In the 2023 proceeding, there were multiple body parts framed as issues for trial, including the left lower extremity, left leg, left ankle, and lumbar spine. The 2023 FA&O, however, only addressed injury to applicant's left lower extremity, left leg, and left ankle, and was silent as to injury to the lumbar spine. That is, the 2023 F&A included no finding regarding the additional body part of lumbar spine at issue here. Moreover, under Award in the F&A, it stated that "All other issues are deferred at this time." Thus, although the body part was listed as an issue in the minutes of hearing, and discussed in the Opinion on Decision, the issue was not actually "decided on the merits," as required. (Pacific Lumber, Co., supra, 37 Cal.4th 921, 943.)
The WCJ's 2023 Findings and Award did not address lumbar spine injury, leaving that issue undecided and not final, so reconsideration was improper on that issue; continuing jurisdiction under Labor Code section 5410 and good cause under section 5803 allow reopening for new and further disability or compensable consequence injury.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ13002614 · 2026-01-05 · San Francisco District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative, removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 1, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant on January 11, 2020 as a rental leasing consultant, applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists (carpal tunnel syndrome), and psyche. The WCJ further held that panel 3448334 is valid; applicant's December 9, 2024 selection of Hosein Tahami, D.O. as the psyche panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) from said panel was premature; the parties April 3, 2024 agreement to continue use of Jeffrey Gould, M.D. as the psyche PQME was in effect until its termination on December 6, 2024; and the time frame during which the parties were to commence the striking process for panel number 3448334 was October 1, 2025--the date of service of the F&O.
The WCJ found the applicant's selection of Dr. Tahami premature because the striking period for the QME panel started anew on December 6, 2024, and had not expired by December 9, 2024, when the applicant selected Dr. Tahami.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14789657 · 2025-10-24 · San Jose District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the July 16, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the F&A, as relevant here, the WCJ found that while employed by defendant on April 29, 2021, as a tree trimmer, occupational group number 482, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his left hand, neck, right shoulder, right arm, right upper extremity, and psyche resulting in permanent and total disability with no apportionment.
The WCJ and WCAB found the applicant permanently and totally disabled with no apportionment based on substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Rakkar and psychiatric QME Dr. Alvarellos, who rated the applicant's orthopedic and psychiatric impairments and found no overlap in activities of daily living, supporting addition of impairments and rebuttal of the permanent disability schedule (CVC).
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ19233122 · 2025-10-06 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the July 3, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed by defendant as a cashier during the period from September 21, 2022 through September 21, 2023, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, and right upper extremity with a need for continuing medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury.
The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence from Dr. Hughes supporting injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts and need for continuing medical treatment, rejecting defendant's argument that no compensable disability existed on the date of injury.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ17001262 · 2024-12-23 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we find that opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Michael Bronshvag, M.D., to be substantial medical evidence which supports the finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE).
The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE based on credible applicant testimony, medical expert opinion of Dr. Bronshvag, and the preponderance of evidence standard favoring the applicant.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ14478876 · 2026-01-27 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Subsequently, the parties attended the aforementioned status conference to discuss the issues raised. On January 21, 2026, the parties filed a joint Stipulation that in exchange for applicant's agreement to have the December 11, 2024 decision of the WCJ rescinded, defendant will withdraw the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision, in order that the matter be returned to the trial level for further discovery on all issues.
The parties stipulated to rescind the WCJ decision and return the matter to the trial level for further discovery and proceedings, which the WCAB approved.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ17175627 · 2025-09-12 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on April 22, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ17961848 · 2025-05-20 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on April 3, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so the Board dismissed it.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14478876 · 2025-03-10 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5950 et seq.
The WCAB found that the Petition for Reconsideration was timely filed and acted upon within the 60-day statutory period, but deferred final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ12411455 · 2022-07-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.
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.
- GIMBEL LAW FIRM PC
- GIMBEL LAW FIRM
- GIMBEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
- Gimbel Law Firm
- GIMBEL 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.
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.