California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Sef Krell

Law Offices of Sef Krell is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2024. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Death benefits (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Bakersfield. The firm it meets most often is Law Offices of Godfrey, Godfrey, Lamb & Ortega (3).

Decisions: 13
Years: 2021–2024
Issues disputed: 7
District offices: 4

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 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.

Who they face

3 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Van Nuys 8
Bakersfield 2
Fresno 2
Santa Ana 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.

6 for the applicant
5 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ4417519 · 2024-12-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5injury, while employed on June 18, 2002 as a painter and construction laborer, at Newbury Park, by David Culbertson, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his neck, left shoulder, left elbow, left wrist, and low back. 2. Pursuant to Labor Code section 3352, applicant was not an employee of Gabriela Vickrey and Randy Vickrey as they owned or occupied the residential dwelling and applicant worked at the residential dwelling for less than 52 hours. 3. David Culbertson did not own or occupy the dwelling where applicant's injury occurred so that Labor Code section 3352 and 3715 do not apply to his employment of applicant. 4. Applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations as the employer failed to provide applicant with a claim form or other statutory notices of his right to seek workers' compensation and thus, the statute of limitations was equitably tolled. 5. Defendant did not meet his burden of proof to show prejudice under the doctrine of laches. Furthermore, defendant, an uninsured employer, has unclean hands.
The statute of limitations was equitably tolled because the employer failed to provide a claim form or statutory notices; defendant did not prove prejudice under laches and had unclean hands as an uninsured employer.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ16925192 · 2024-05-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeDeath benefitsdeferred
Determinative passage · p.7In this regard, the record shows that the WCJ determined that Melanie the applicant is not entitled to Labor Code section 4703.5(a) death benefits based solely upon the finding that she was not a total dependent of the applicant and is otherwise undeveloped as to that issue. (Report, p. 7.) But since we have determined that Melanie the applicant was a total dependent, the record is without grounds to support the finding that she is not entitled to Labor Code section 4703.5(a) death benefits. Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that defers the issue of whether Melanie the applicant is entitled to Labor Code 4703.5(a) death benefits.
Since Melanie the applicant was found to be a total dependent, the issue of her entitlement to death benefits under Labor Code section 4703.5(a) was deferred for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ11799924 · 2022-11-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5(c) (1) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after April 19, 2004, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of two years from the date of commencement of temporary disability payment. (2) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after January 1, 2008, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of five years from the date of injury. (3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), for an employee who suffers from the following injuries or conditions, aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after April 19, 2004, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 240 compensable weeks within a period of five years from the date of the injury: (A) Acute and chronic hepatitis B. (B) Acute and chronic hepatitis C. (C) Amputations. (D) Severe burns. (E) Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). (F) High-velocity eye injuries. (G) Chemical burns to the eyes. (H) Pulmonary fibrosis. (I) Chronic lung disease.
The applicant sustained a high-velocity eye injury caused by a high velocity impact to his person, resulting in ongoing temporary total disability and entitlement to up to 240 weeks of temporary disability under the statute exception.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ11317555 · 2022-03-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.5In this matter, we are not persuaded that the Findings of Fact and Order is adequately
The WCAB found the prior Findings and Order inadequately supported because the QME did not parse individual factors of causation or assign percentages as required by Rolda analysis, necessitating further development of the record.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ13190781 · 2021-08-04 · Bakersfield District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6The WCJ in this matter concluded that applicant's panel request was not premature because he waited 16 days from the date of mailing of defendant's claim delay notice before submitting his request. This conclusion would be correct if the insurance carrier's address of record was within California and the applicable mailbox extension was five calendar days per WCAB Rule 10605(a)(1). WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2) extends the period for exercising any right by ten calendar days instead of five days from the date of service if the place of mailing of the party being served is outside of California but within the United States. The carrier's address of record is located in Kansas City, MO, i.e., outside of California but within the United States. Consequently, applicant was obligated to wait ten days from the date of mailing of the May 4, 2020 claim delay notice per section 4062.2(b) plus an additional ten days per WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2) before requesting a panel. His panel request on May 20, 2020 was thus premature and the resulting panel is invalid.
The panel request was premature because the applicant did not wait the required time under Labor Code section 4062.2(b) plus the additional mailing time under WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2) due to the carrier's address being outside California but within the United States.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ16751654 · 2024-09-25 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In the December 28, 2023 Minutes of Hearing in which the F&O issued, the WCJ states as follows:
The WCJ's Finding and Order lacked evidentiary support and did not specify the specialties for additional QME panels, violating due process and substantial evidence requirements, warranting removal and rescission.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ17557350 · 2024-08-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9347848 · 2024-06-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 14, 2024 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 →
ADJ11799924 · 2023-10-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issuedeferred
Determinative passage · p.8Here, the issue of the appropriate basis for the calculation of attorney's fees, including the application of SAWW and/or the present value discount was not framed with specificity at the time of trial. Accordingly, the record does not adequately address the interaction, if any, between the statutorily mandated present value reduction set forth in section 5101, and the inclusion of SAWW adjustments per section 4659(c) in the calculation of attorney's fees. Nor does the record address the concomitant public policy considerations inherent in the arguments for present value reduction versus attorney fee adjustments made pursuant to COLA. We believe that a complete record under section 5701 and Hamilton, supra, requires further explication of these issues.
The record did not adequately address the interaction between the present value discount and SAWW adjustments in attorney fees calculation, requiring further development; thus, the issue was deferred.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ9223291 · 2022-03-10 · Van Nuys 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.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13306324 · 2021-03-05 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's December 30, 2020 denial of defendant's Petition to Dismiss is solely an intermediate procedural order. It does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Therefore, it is not a "final" decision. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition to the extent that it seeks reconsideration, treat it as a petition requesting removal, and deny removal for the reasons stated below.
The WCJ's denial of defendant's Petition to Dismiss was an intermediate procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration is not available. Removal is denied because no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown, and summary judgment is not permitted in workers' compensation proceedings.
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 OFFICES OF SEF KRELL
Law Offices of Sef Krell
SEF KRELL

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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Law Offices of Sef Krell

Decisions

Years

2021–2024

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

5 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ4417519 · 2024-12-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5injury, while employed on June 18, 2002 as a painter and construction laborer, at Newbury Park, by David Culbertson, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his neck, left shoulder, left elbow, left wrist, and low back. 2. Pursuant to Labor Code section 3352, applicant was not an employee of Gabriela Vickrey and Randy Vickrey as they owned or occupied the residential dwelling and applicant worked at the residential dwelling for less than 52 hours. 3. David Culbertson did not own or occupy the dwelling where applicant's injury occurred so that Labor Code section 3352 and 3715 do not apply to his employment of applicant. 4. Applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations as the employer failed to provide applicant with a claim form or other statutory notices of his right to seek workers' compensation and thus, the statute of limitations was equitably tolled. 5. Defendant did not meet his burden of proof to show prejudice under the doctrine of laches. Furthermore, defendant, an uninsured employer, has unclean hands.

The statute of limitations was equitably tolled because the employer failed to provide a claim form or statutory notices; defendant did not prove prejudice under laches and had unclean hands as an uninsured employer.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ16925192 · 2024-05-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeDeath benefitsdeferred

Determinative passage · p.7In this regard, the record shows that the WCJ determined that Melanie the applicant is not entitled to Labor Code section 4703.5(a) death benefits based solely upon the finding that she was not a total dependent of the applicant and is otherwise undeveloped as to that issue. (Report, p. 7.) But since we have determined that Melanie the applicant was a total dependent, the record is without grounds to support the finding that she is not entitled to Labor Code section 4703.5(a) death benefits. Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that defers the issue of whether Melanie the applicant is entitled to Labor Code 4703.5(a) death benefits.

Since Melanie the applicant was found to be a total dependent, the issue of her entitlement to death benefits under Labor Code section 4703.5(a) was deferred for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ11799924 · 2022-11-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5(c) (1) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after April 19, 2004, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of two years from the date of commencement of temporary disability payment. (2) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after January 1, 2008, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of five years from the date of injury. (3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), for an employee who suffers from the following injuries or conditions, aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after April 19, 2004, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 240 compensable weeks within a period of five years from the date of the injury: (A) Acute and chronic hepatitis B. (B) Acute and chronic hepatitis C. (C) Amputations. (D) Severe burns. (E) Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). (F) High-velocity eye injuries. (G) Chemical burns to the eyes. (H) Pulmonary fibrosis. (I) Chronic lung disease.

The applicant sustained a high-velocity eye injury caused by a high velocity impact to his person, resulting in ongoing temporary total disability and entitlement to up to 240 weeks of temporary disability under the statute exception.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ11317555 · 2022-03-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.5In this matter, we are not persuaded that the Findings of Fact and Order is adequately

The WCAB found the prior Findings and Order inadequately supported because the QME did not parse individual factors of causation or assign percentages as required by Rolda analysis, necessitating further development of the record.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ13190781 · 2021-08-04 · Bakersfield District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6The WCJ in this matter concluded that applicant's panel request was not premature because he waited 16 days from the date of mailing of defendant's claim delay notice before submitting his request. This conclusion would be correct if the insurance carrier's address of record was within California and the applicable mailbox extension was five calendar days per WCAB Rule 10605(a)(1). WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2) extends the period for exercising any right by ten calendar days instead of five days from the date of service if the place of mailing of the party being served is outside of California but within the United States. The carrier's address of record is located in Kansas City, MO, i.e., outside of California but within the United States. Consequently, applicant was obligated to wait ten days from the date of mailing of the May 4, 2020 claim delay notice per section 4062.2(b) plus an additional ten days per WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2) before requesting a panel. His panel request on May 20, 2020 was thus premature and the resulting panel is invalid.

The panel request was premature because the applicant did not wait the required time under Labor Code section 4062.2(b) plus the additional mailing time under WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2) due to the carrier's address being outside California but within the United States.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ16751654 · 2024-09-25 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In the December 28, 2023 Minutes of Hearing in which the F&O issued, the WCJ states as follows:

The WCJ's Finding and Order lacked evidentiary support and did not specify the specialties for additional QME panels, violating due process and substantial evidence requirements, warranting removal and rescission.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ17557350 · 2024-08-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9347848 · 2024-06-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 14, 2024 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 →

ADJ11799924 · 2023-10-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issuedeferred

Determinative passage · p.8Here, the issue of the appropriate basis for the calculation of attorney's fees, including the application of SAWW and/or the present value discount was not framed with specificity at the time of trial. Accordingly, the record does not adequately address the interaction, if any, between the statutorily mandated present value reduction set forth in section 5101, and the inclusion of SAWW adjustments per section 4659(c) in the calculation of attorney's fees. Nor does the record address the concomitant public policy considerations inherent in the arguments for present value reduction versus attorney fee adjustments made pursuant to COLA. We believe that a complete record under section 5701 and Hamilton, supra, requires further explication of these issues.

The record did not adequately address the interaction between the present value discount and SAWW adjustments in attorney fees calculation, requiring further development; thus, the issue was deferred.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ9223291 · 2022-03-10 · Van Nuys 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.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13306324 · 2021-03-05 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Here, the WCJ's December 30, 2020 denial of defendant's Petition to Dismiss is solely an intermediate procedural order. It does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Therefore, it is not a "final" decision. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition to the extent that it seeks reconsideration, treat it as a petition requesting removal, and deny removal for the reasons stated below.

The WCJ's denial of defendant's Petition to Dismiss was an intermediate procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration is not available. Removal is denied because no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown, and summary judgment is not permitted in workers' compensation proceedings.

Official decision · page 2 →