California WCABLaw firm

Prindle, Goetz, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP

Prindle, Goetz, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP is named in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Marina del Rey, then Anaheim. The firm it meets most often is Hinden & Breslavsky (2).

Decisions: 8
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 7

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 5 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

Marina del Rey 2
Anaheim 1
Los Angeles 1
Marina del Ray 1
San Bernardino 1
San Francisco 1
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.

3 for the defense
3 returned for more record
2 for the applicant

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ17050134 · 2025-08-26 · Marina del Rey District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 14, 2025. The WCJ found that applicant failed to prove that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a and that the issues of affirmative defenses and attorney fees are moot. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his Petition for Increased Benefits for Discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.
The WCJ found that the applicant failed to prove the defendant violated Labor Code section 132a, but the parties later settled the issues by compromise and release, leading to remand for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16726116 · 2025-06-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.6To be compensable, an injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. (Lab. Code, § 3600.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a); 3202.5, 5705.) Medical evidence that industrial causation was reasonably probable, although not certain, constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 417 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].)
The WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight, but the PQME's opinion was found insufficiently supported due to incomplete record review and credibility issues, necessitating further development of the record and updated medical opinion.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ17121403 · 2023-10-24 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Here, applicant claimed a cumulative injury but the WCJ found that he did not meet his burden of proof to support industrial causation and ordered that he take nothing. (F&O, pp. 1-2.) In coming to this conclusion, the WCJ found that testimony by the applicant not credible. (OOD, pp. 2-3.) Applicant objected to the DOR because he was entitled to a comprehensive medical- legal evaluation with a qualified medical examiner in order to settle the current dispute with regards to compensability. More significantly, there was no medical evidence presented at the trial, and with respect to the issue of whether applicant sustained a cumulative injury, medical evidence regarding causation is key.
The WCJ found applicant not credible and no medical evidence was presented at trial; however, the Appeals Board found the record was insufficiently developed on the threshold issue of industrial causation and remanded for further development of the medical record.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ15505678 · 2022-11-10 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4is not subject to review by the Appeals Board. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to address defendant's contentions regarding this order.
The Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders such as the arbitrator's order to develop the record, which is not a final order under Labor Code section 3201.5(a)(1).
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ9310145 · 2022-08-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, applicant was employed as a laborer on October 4, 2011, and defendant stipulated to that applicant was employed on that date and that his occupational variant was 360. Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10835; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The stipulation that applicant's occupational variant is 360 has not been disputed. As applicant's specific injury occurred on October 4, 2011, and his cumulative trauma injury began on October 4, 2011, applicant is entitled to the higher group number. We note that the assignment of the higher occupational group does not change the recommended permanent disability rating.
The parties stipulated that applicant's occupational variant for the specific injury on October 4, 2011 was 360, and the Board found applicant entitled to the higher group number for the cumulative trauma period as well.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12256911 · 2025-01-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant 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 grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision consistent with this opinion.
The Appeals Board timely acted on the petition for reconsideration within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909, and the medical record was found deficient, requiring further development consistent with McDuffie.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13738581 · 2023-06-09 · Marina del Ray 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 show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13738581 · 2022-12-23 · 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.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy if final decision adverse to petitioner issued.
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.

PRINDLE, GOETZ, BARNES & REINHOLTZ LLP
Prindle, Goetz, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP
PRINDLE, GOETZ, BARNES & REINHOLTZ, LLP
Prindle Goetz Barnes & Reinholtz
Prindle, Goetz & Barnes
Prindle Goetz

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 →

Prindle, Goetz, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the defense

3 returned for more record

2 for the applicant

Counted over 8 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.

ADJ17050134 · 2025-08-26 · Marina del Rey District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 14, 2025. The WCJ found that applicant failed to prove that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a and that the issues of affirmative defenses and attorney fees are moot. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his Petition for Increased Benefits for Discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

The WCJ found that the applicant failed to prove the defendant violated Labor Code section 132a, but the parties later settled the issues by compromise and release, leading to remand for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16726116 · 2025-06-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.6To be compensable, an injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. (Lab. Code, § 3600.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a); 3202.5, 5705.) Medical evidence that industrial causation was reasonably probable, although not certain, constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 417 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].)

The WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight, but the PQME's opinion was found insufficiently supported due to incomplete record review and credibility issues, necessitating further development of the record and updated medical opinion.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ17121403 · 2023-10-24 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Here, applicant claimed a cumulative injury but the WCJ found that he did not meet his burden of proof to support industrial causation and ordered that he take nothing. (F&O, pp. 1-2.) In coming to this conclusion, the WCJ found that testimony by the applicant not credible. (OOD, pp. 2-3.) Applicant objected to the DOR because he was entitled to a comprehensive medical- legal evaluation with a qualified medical examiner in order to settle the current dispute with regards to compensability. More significantly, there was no medical evidence presented at the trial, and with respect to the issue of whether applicant sustained a cumulative injury, medical evidence regarding causation is key.

The WCJ found applicant not credible and no medical evidence was presented at trial; however, the Appeals Board found the record was insufficiently developed on the threshold issue of industrial causation and remanded for further development of the medical record.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ15505678 · 2022-11-10 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4is not subject to review by the Appeals Board. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to address defendant's contentions regarding this order.

The Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders such as the arbitrator's order to develop the record, which is not a final order under Labor Code section 3201.5(a)(1).

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ9310145 · 2022-08-15 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, applicant was employed as a laborer on October 4, 2011, and defendant stipulated to that applicant was employed on that date and that his occupational variant was 360. Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10835; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The stipulation that applicant's occupational variant is 360 has not been disputed. As applicant's specific injury occurred on October 4, 2011, and his cumulative trauma injury began on October 4, 2011, applicant is entitled to the higher group number. We note that the assignment of the higher occupational group does not change the recommended permanent disability rating.

The parties stipulated that applicant's occupational variant for the specific injury on October 4, 2011 was 360, and the Board found applicant entitled to the higher group number for the cumulative trauma period as well.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12256911 · 2025-01-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant 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 grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision consistent with this opinion.

The Appeals Board timely acted on the petition for reconsideration within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909, and the medical record was found deficient, requiring further development consistent with McDuffie.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13738581 · 2023-06-09 · Marina del Ray 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 show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13738581 · 2022-12-23 · 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.

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

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.

PRINDLE, GOETZ, BARNES & REINHOLTZ LLP

Prindle, Goetz, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP

PRINDLE, GOETZ, BARNES & REINHOLTZ, LLP

Prindle Goetz Barnes & Reinholtz

Prindle, Goetz & Barnes

Prindle Goetz