Glenn Stuckey & Partners

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 41
• Anaheim 1
• San Diego 1
• Santa 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.

• 22 for the applicant
• 18 for the defense
• 6 returned for more record

Counted over 42 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.

• ADJ number not stated · 2026-06-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On March 23, 2026, we issued our Decision determining in relevant part that the filing of a workers' compensation claim on applicant's behalf in 2004 did not impart the knowledge required to establish a date of injury under section 5412 and commence the running of the statute of limitations under section 5405. We observed that per applicant's testimony, he had not initiated the 2004 claim and had never spoken to the filing attorney. We also observed that none of the claim filing documents and supporting documentation were signed by applicant and that evidence established that applicant's only involvement with the claim had been to instruct that it be withdrawn after learning of the filing. (Decision, at pp. 9-10.) We noted the first evidence establishing compensable disability arising out of industrial exposures was the May 4, 2021 medical reporting of orthopedic physician Dr. Einbund. We thus identified May 4, 2021 as the section 5412 date of injury, and concluded that because the instant claim was not filed more than one year from the date of injury, compensation was not barred under section 5405. (Id. at p. 11.)

  The WCAB found that the applicant's date of injury was May 4, 2021, based on medical evidence, and that the 2004 claim filing did not establish knowledge of compensable disability to trigger the statute of limitations under section 5405.

• ADJ13858864 · 2026-03-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration and affirm the F&O, except that we will amend it to find that the section 5412 date of injury was May 4, 2021 (Finding of Fact No. 2); that compensation is not barred by section 5405 (Finding of Fact No. 3); and that applicant is not estopped from claiming injury under the equitable doctrine of laches (Finding of Fact No. 5).

  The WCAB found the date of injury to be May 4, 2021, so the claim was filed within the one-year statute of limitations under section 5405, and the defendant failed to prove prejudice to support laches.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16089982 · 2026-02-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Accordingly, we concur with the WCJ's determination that the reports of Michael Einbund, M.D., Rosabel Young, M.D., Michael Wells, M.D., and Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., are admissible in proceedings before the WCAB, and may further be submitted for review by the appropriately selected panel QMEs in this matter. We express no opinion as to the evidentiary weight the reports should be accorded, either by the QMEs selected by the parties pursuant to current section 4060 and 4062.2, or by the WCJ.

  The WCJ correctly admitted applicant's self-procured medical reports obtained under former section 4060 as they were obtained prior to the parties' selection of QMEs under current sections 4060 and 4062.2, and not solely to rebut the panel QME's opinion. Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the reports' admissibility.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ8828773 · 2025-10-15 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3limitations. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 4, 5.) The WCJ determined that applicant's injuries caused 87 percent permanent partial disability after apportionment of 5 percent of applicant's right knee disability to a prior injury, and that permanent disability indemnity payments commenced on March 24, 2014. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 8, 9.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explained that the conclusions reached by applicant's orthopedic evaluator were not substantial evidence to support the award of temporary disability. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 12.) The WCJ reviewed the submitted medical record and ultimately determined that the reports of Drs. Einbund and Glatstein were the most persuasive. Based thereon, the WCJ determined that applicant sustained 87 percent permanent disability with 5 percent apportionment of applicant's right knee disability. (Id. at pp. 15-16.)

  The WCJ relied on the medical reports of Drs. Einbund and Glatstein and found 87% permanent disability with 5% apportionment to a prior injury, and defendant failed to meet its burden to prove further apportionment.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9085188 · 2025-09-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order; Opinion on Decision" (F&O) issued on June 24, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the parties were required to obtain a qualified medical evaluator (QME) pursuant to Labor Code1 sections 4060 and 4062.2.

  The panel found that the QME process under sections 4060 and 4062.2 applies because the applicant's date of injury for cumulative injury claims is determined under section 5412, which depends on the date the applicant first suffered disability and had knowledge, not the last date of injurious exposure in 1985. The claim was filed in 2013, so the current QME process applies. The applicant did not show irreparable harm or substantial prejudice from applying the current QME process.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9085187 · 2025-05-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7"The purpose of section 5412 was to prevent a premature commencement of the statute of limitations, so that it would not expire before the employee was reasonably aware of his or her injury." (Butler, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d 327, 341.) That is, the employee must understand that he has sustained an injury resulting in disability for there to be corresponding knowledge that the disability is work-related. Defendant's contention that we should rely on Dr. Kim's assessment in 2019 of the existence of permanent disability in 1969 attempts to substitute a retroactive medical opinion approximately 50 years after the fact in place of applicant's contemporaneous understanding he had sustained an injury resulting in temporary or permanent disability. While applicant may have understood that he had sustained injuries causing pain during the course of his professional football career, the record does not establish the existence of contemporaneous temporary or permanent disability. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that applicant had the disability in 1969 necessary for the attachment of a date of injury under section 5412.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant did not have knowledge of a compensable disability until 2015, so the statute of limitations did not bar the claim, and the date of injury was set at February 13, 2015.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10607572 · 2025-05-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6We next address defendant's contention that the reporting of applicant's treating physicians is inadmissible. Defendant contends the reporting of primary treating physician (PTP) Dr. Fonseca does not reflect an actual treatment relationship with applicant, nor can it describe a treatment relationship when the treating physician opines applicant became permanent and stationary more than three years prior to the evaluation. (Defendant's Petition, at p. 3:23; 4:11.) Defendant further contends that none of applicant's evaluations by Drs. Greenzang, Nudleman, and Dimmick were accomplished by an appropriate referral from the PTP, and accordingly, were not an appropriate basis upon which to issue an Award. (Id. at p. 6:23.)

  The WCJ properly relied on the reports of treating physicians as the sole body of medical evidence; the WCAB declined to disturb this reliance.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11706407 · 2025-04-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that the record is clear as to whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion applies. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

  The WCAB found that the issues of jurisdiction and res judicata were not clearly resolved in the prior order and that reconsideration was necessary to fully study the factual and legal issues.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8627409 · 2025-02-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, AIFSIF's attorneys filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Summit, the administrator, on April 12, 2021. This Notice of Appearance contains no indication that Summit and therefore AIFSIF was appearing specially to contest personal jurisdiction. Strictly speaking, it appears that this conduct was sufficient, standing alone, to waive any objection to personal jurisdiction, despite the attorney's assertion three days later of the personal jurisdiction objection at the first hearing the attorney attended.

  AIFSIF's conduct, including filing a Notice of Appearance without a special appearance and participating in the merits for nearly two years before seeking adjudication, constituted a waiver of personal jurisdiction objection.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ13474651 · 2024-11-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because applicant previously settled a case involving the same employers, similar injuries, and the same body parts.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in barring the claim by res judicata because the prior settlement did not clearly include the brain, nervous system related to psych or stress, or neurological problems aside from Parkinson's disease, and the applicant did not intend to settle those injuries.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8809936 · 2024-06-21 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  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 Code section 5950 et seq.

  The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the jurisdictional and liability issues raised by NJMIC, deferring final decision pending further review of the entire record and applicable law.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ9082985 · 2024-05-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Order (F&O) issued on May 30, 2019, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional athlete from July 1, 1965 to July 1, 1975 claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his head, vision, jaw, neck, back, shoulders, elbows, wrist, hands, fingers, hips, knees, ankles, feet, toes, neuro/psyche, internal, cardiovascular, heart, hypertension, sleep, and injuries resulting in his death. The WCJ found that applicant's employment contracts were entered into outside the State of California, and that California does not have a legitimate and substantial interest in applicant's claim sufficient to compel defendant to adjudicate the claim under the laws of California.

  The WCJ found no California contract of hire and insufficient contacts between the injury and California to justify jurisdiction, supported by substantial evidence including applicant's deposition and medical reports.

  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.

• GLENN, STUCKEY & PARTNERS
• GLENN, STUCKEY & PARTNERS, LLP
• Glenn Stuckey & Partners
• GLENN STUCKEY & PARTNERS
• Glenn, Stuckey & Partners
• GLENN STUCKEY
• GLENN, STUCKEY AND PARTNERS, LLP
• GLENN, STUCKEY, & PARTNERS, LLP
• GLENN, STUCKEY & PARTNERS LLP
• GLENN STUCKEY AND PARTNERS
• GLENN STUCKEY LAW FIRM
• Glenn Stuckey LLP

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.