California WCABLaw firm
Law Offices of Slade & Neighbors
Law Offices of Slade & Neighbors is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (3), AOE/COE (2) and Apportionment (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Long Beach.
- Decisions
- 11
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 6
- District offices
- 8
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.
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 9 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.
- ADJ14443327 · 2025-03-24 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Ace American Insurance adjusted by Gallagher Bassett Services (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on December 13, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a mechanic during the period ending June 9, 2021, sustained industrial injury to bilateral knees. The WCJ found that applicant's injuries resulted in a period of temporary total disability commencing January 10, 2023 through the present and continuing.
The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence supporting the cumulative injury claim may require further development and review, and granted reconsideration to allow full consideration of the entire record.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12705097 · 2022-09-21 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Defendant contends that the qualified medical evaluator (QME) Dr. Joseph Sclafani improperly rated applicant's impairment based on a lifting work restriction. This contention is unsupported by the record. Dr. Sclafani found that the strict rating of applicant's impairment "is not commensurate with the applicant's disability" and "does not accurately reflect the impact of this injury on applicant's activities of daily living and work capacity." (Joint Exhibit AA, QME Report by Dr. Joseph Sclafani, February 15, 2022, pp. 6-7.) He explained that "applicant's
The WCAB found that the QME Dr. Joseph Sclafani's alternative rating using Almaraz/Guzman analogy was substantial evidence supporting a 29% permanent disability rating, rejecting the defendant's contention for a strict rating.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ12278560 · 2022-09-20 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Defendant's failed to object to the rating instructions issued by the WCJ on May 3, 2022, nor did they make any effort to request cross examination of the rater. The issue raised their Petition for Reconsideration is that the report of Dr. Roberts cannot use loss of strength as a factor of impairment in the face of pain. Defendants argue that "pain at the level reported would prevent the effective application of maximal force during strength testing." There is, however, no evidence to support that fact, especially when the applicant reported to Dr. Roberts that he did not have pain. However, Dr. Roberts did indicate that the applicant had suffered a massive non-repairable rotator cuff tear in the left shoulder, accompanied by rotator cuff arthroplasty and rupture of the long head of the biceps tendon. He said that there was weakness in the left shoulder to abduction, flexion, internal and external rotation. (March 12, 2020, page 24, para 3).
The WCJ found Dr. Roberts' permanent disability rating appropriate and supported by applicant's lack of pain but significant loss of strength, and no challenge was made to the rating until appeal, with no cross-examination of Dr. Roberts.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ11181283 · 2021-09-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Petitioner, USA Waste of California, Inc., insured by ACE American Insurance, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, has filed a timely & verified Petition for Removal, contending this Court should not have Ordered additional QME panels in the fields of Internal Medicine, Psychology, and ENT.
The court found good cause for additional QME panels in Internal Medicine, Psychology, and ENT specialties because the existing orthopedic QME report did not cover non-orthopedic issues, and the additional panels were necessary to resolve disputed medical issues expeditiously and justly.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ10915228 · 2021-08-18 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Defendant's final argument is that the rating provided by Dr. Fortanasce is incorrect in that his rating for carpal tunnel syndrome incorrectly uses a grade 3 sensory deficit whereas a grade 4 deficit was more appropriate. Dr. Fortanasce opined that as applicable to Table 16-10 of the AMA Guides2, "...Grade III is chosen due to the distorted superficial tactile sensibility, abnormal sensation or slight pain that inference with some activities..." and utilized a 50% modifier from the range of 26-60. (Exhibit A, page 3). In his report of November 13, 2019 he indicated that "Post-surgery EMG/Nerve Conduction Study have shown worsening of her carpal tunnel syndrome in spite of conservative treatment and surgery." (Exhibit B, page 2). Diagnostic testing from 2017 to 2019 also indicated deterioration of applicant's median nerve neuropathy. It was also noted in reporting of August 8, 2019 that comparison of the diagnostic studies indicated applicant's right wrist was "consistent with extremely severe right carpal tunnel syndrome which would continue to explain the complaints of paresthesia in the right hand and fingertips. (Exhibit C, page 8).
The Board relied on Dr. Fortanasce's rating as issued and declined to alter it despite defendant's argument for a higher grade.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ8396740 · 2021-04-22 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813mixed
Determinative passage · p.3I. Former WCAB Rule 10451.1(f)(1)(A)(i)(I) provided that a defendant has waived all objections to a medical-legal provider's billing, except for compliance with section 4620 and 4621, if a defendant failed to serve an EOR within 60 days of a provider's properly documented billing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10451.1(f)(1)(A)(i)(I).)2 Here, as stipulated to by the parties, defendant failed to serve timely its EOR. Thus, defendant waived all objections to the billing at issue, and one of the issues that needed to be resolved was the reasonable value of cost petitioner's billing. In our January 13, 2020 Decision After Reconsideration, we remanded this issue to the trial level.
The WCJ found the billing reasonable based on the medical-legal report and billing, and defendant failed to provide evidence to prove unreasonableness, but the issue of sanctions, costs, and attorney's fees was deferred for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ19078946 · 2026-04-03 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1Thereafter on March 5, 2026, the parties jointly requested that this matter proceed off calendar with a deposition of the adjuster set. As the issue raised in the petition for removal is now resolved by joint agreement, the petition is moot.
The petition was dismissed as moot because the issue was resolved by joint agreement of the parties.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14443327 · 2025-09-23 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Ace American Insurance adjusted by Gallagher Bassett Services (defendant) filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 13, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a mechanic during the period ending June 9, 2021, sustained industrial injury to bilateral knees. The WCJ found that applicant's injuries resulted in a period of temporary total disability commencing January 10, 2023 through the present and continuing.
The WCAB rescinded the prior Findings and Award and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings based on the parties' stipulation and the need for a complete record.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10112147 · 2025-08-01 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the Answer 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.1
The petition for removal was denied because the WCJ's decision was not a final order and the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14368537 · 2022-10-05 · Marina del Rey 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 denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10804535 · 2022-09-07 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination and found no substantial evidence to reject it, thus denying the Petition for Reconsideration.
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.
- SLADE NEIGHBORS
- SLADE NEIGHBORS, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
- Law Offices of Slade & Neighbors
- Slade J. Neighbors Law Offices
- LAW OFFICE OF SLADE NEIGHBORS
- SLADE NEIGHBORS, APLC
- SLADE NEIGHBORS LAW
- Slade Neighbors
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.