Law Office of Manuel Reynoso

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• QME/AME process1

Where they appear

• San Jose 4
• Oakland 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.

• 2 for the applicant
• 2 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ16350553 · 2025-08-25 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 30, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the reporting of QME Dr. Lorenzo Hughes violated Labor Code section 46281; that the reporting does not constitute substantial medical evidence; and, that it must be stricken from the record. The WCJ also granted defendant's petition for a replacement QME panel and ordered that a replacement panel in pain medicine be provided within 30 days.

  The WCJ found Dr. Hughes violated section 4628 by allowing a third party to summarize medical records, but the WCAB found due process was not afforded to Dr. Hughes before striking the reports, so the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19167634 · 2025-11-07 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ's October 7, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (F&O) determined that panel number 7695740 was invalid because the panel request listed an incorrect

  The petition was denied because the incorrect claim number and primary treating physician listed in the QME panel request denied due process and substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was not shown to warrant removal.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11060751 · 2021-10-29 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2The petition filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Therefore it is subject to dismissal.

  The petition failed to state grounds for reconsideration or cite the record specifically, warranting dismissal as skeletal under Labor Code 5902 and WCAB Rules 10945 and 10972.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• LAW OFFICE OF MANUEL REYNOSO
• Law Office of Manuel Reynoso

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.