California WCABLaw firm

Smolich & Smolich

Smolich & Smolich is named in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Apportionment (6), Permanent disability rating (1) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Sacramento. The firm it meets most often is Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen (3).

Decisions: 9
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 of 9 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

5 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

Sacramento 9

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
2 returned for more record
1 for the defense

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ9174544 · 2025-09-29 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5(F&A, p.1.) However, when calculating the total PD for the cumulative trauma injury, the WCJ included an 11% WPI for the left shoulder which rates to 26% PD. (Opinion, p.6.) The WCJ did not offer any explanation as why she rated the left shoulder using an 11% WPI when the AME Dr. Abelow had found 6% WPI for the left shoulder. Moreover, the WCJ did not explain why she included the left shoulder impairment in the rating for the cumulative trauma injury when AME Dr. Abelow found 100% of the left shoulder impairment to be due to the prior industrial injury. (Applicant Exhibit 1, p.22.) The present record lacks substantial medical evidence to find impairment for the left shoulder as part of the cumulative trauma injury. There is also no evidence that the parties stipulated to the left shoulder as being accepted and that the left shoulder was ever a disputed body part. (MOH/SOE, p.2.) Thus, the finding of PD for the left shoulder must be rescinded and the final PD for the cumulative trauma injury is 89%.
The Appeals Board rescinded the left shoulder PD finding due to lack of substantial evidence and affirmed a final PD rating of 89% for the cumulative trauma injury based on the medical opinions of Dr. Abelow and Dr. Kearns.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ9485504 · 2025-04-22 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.6In this case, AME Dr. Renbaum's reporting apportions 15% of applicant's permanent disability of the cervical spine, right shoulder, right hip and bilateral knees to pre-existing degenerative changes and 85% to the August 7, 2009 work injury but does not disclose what pre- existing degenerative changes resulted in injury which contributed to the disability or how or why the pre-existing degenerative changes caused the extent of disability attributed to them. (Ex. AA, Report of Dr. Joel Renbaum, February 5, 2020, pp. 10-12; Report, pp. 2-3.)
The AME Dr. Renbaum's apportionment report lacks explanation of the nature of degenerative changes and their contribution to disability, requiring further development of the record.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ10110509 · 2024-11-27 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7In Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [Appeals Board en banc], the Board discussed the following requirements for a medical opinion to be considered substantial evidence of apportionment:
Dr. Anderson's apportionment opinion was found not to be substantial evidence due to lack of detailed reasoning, internal contradictions, and speculative nature, failing the Escobedo standard.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ11431030 · 2024-10-22 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2We now turn to the merits. The defendant has the burden of proof on apportionment. (Lab. Code, § 5705; Pullman Kellogg v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (Normand) (1980) 26 Cal.3d 450, 456 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 170]; Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kopping) (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1115 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (Escobedo) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 613 (Appeals Board en banc).) To meet this burden, the defendant "must demonstrate that, based upon reasonable medical probability, there is a legal basis for apportionment." (Gay v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gay) (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 555, 564 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 817]; see also Escobedo, supra, at p. 620.)
The WCJ and WCAB found that the medical opinion of Dr. Renbaum on apportionment was not substantial medical evidence because it lacked detailed reasoning and explanation required by law, thus denying apportionment and awarding permanent disability without apportionment.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12140821 · 2024-04-12 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3August 9, 2023 supplemental report, do not constitute substantial evidence addressing the issue of apportionment. (Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra.)1
Dr. Abelow's reports did not explain how and why non-industrial factors caused permanent disability or the assigned percentage, thus not substantial evidence; defendant failed to meet burden of proof on apportionment.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12140821 · 2023-06-09 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and Defendant each seek reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 23, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's disability should be rated using "dual occupational variants, 250 and 322" and that 75% of applicant's disability was caused by her industrial injury and 25% would be apportioned to prior non-industrial factors.1
Dr. Abelow's apportionment reports lacked explanation for the change in opinion and failed to explain how and why pre-existing factors caused permanent disability at the time of evaluation, thus not constituting substantial evidence. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings to clarify apportionment and to use the single occupational variant with the higher disability rating.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9616392 · 2021-09-13 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4As noted above, in his July 19, 2020 report Dr. Snook gave a detailed description of applicant's pre-existing degenerative lower back condition. (Joint Exh. EE, p. 4.) However, the doctor did not explain how and why the pre-existing degenerative condition was causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, nor did he explain how and why it was responsible for 30% of applicant's lumbar spine disability. His report is not substantial evidence on the issue of apportionment and cannot be the bases for the F&A. Thus, defendant did not meet its burden of proof and applicant is entitled to an unapportioned award of permanent disability.
Dr. Snook's reports did not explain how and why the pre-existing degenerative condition caused permanent disability or justified the 30% apportionment, so they were not substantial evidence. Defendant did not meet its burden of proof, entitling applicant to an unapportioned award.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ448540 · 2023-04-25 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the Minutes of Hearing and Order Consolidating issued on December 15, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11649621 · 2022-01-21 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings of Facts and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 12, 2021. By the F&O, the WCJ found that the reporting of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) did not constitute substantial evidence and returning to the QME for development of the record would be "fruitless." Submission of the matter was vacated and the parties were ordered to advise the WCJ if they could agree to an agreed medical evaluator (AME) to replace the QME. If the parties could not agree to an AME, the WCJ was to appoint a regular physician per Labor Code1 section 5701. (Lab. Code, § 5701.)
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in finding the QME report was not substantial evidence and that returning to the QME for further development would be fruitless. The Board ordered the matter returned to the trial level for further development of the record, initially with the existing QME, then potentially an AME or regular physician if needed.
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.

SMOLICH & SMOLICH
Smolich & Smolich

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 →

Smolich & Smolich

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

1 for the defense

Counted over 9 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.

ADJ9174544 · 2025-09-29 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5(F&A, p.1.) However, when calculating the total PD for the cumulative trauma injury, the WCJ included an 11% WPI for the left shoulder which rates to 26% PD. (Opinion, p.6.) The WCJ did not offer any explanation as why she rated the left shoulder using an 11% WPI when the AME Dr. Abelow had found 6% WPI for the left shoulder. Moreover, the WCJ did not explain why she included the left shoulder impairment in the rating for the cumulative trauma injury when AME Dr. Abelow found 100% of the left shoulder impairment to be due to the prior industrial injury. (Applicant Exhibit 1, p.22.) The present record lacks substantial medical evidence to find impairment for the left shoulder as part of the cumulative trauma injury. There is also no evidence that the parties stipulated to the left shoulder as being accepted and that the left shoulder was ever a disputed body part. (MOH/SOE, p.2.) Thus, the finding of PD for the left shoulder must be rescinded and the final PD for the cumulative trauma injury is 89%.

The Appeals Board rescinded the left shoulder PD finding due to lack of substantial evidence and affirmed a final PD rating of 89% for the cumulative trauma injury based on the medical opinions of Dr. Abelow and Dr. Kearns.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ9485504 · 2025-04-22 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentremanded

Determinative passage · p.6In this case, AME Dr. Renbaum's reporting apportions 15% of applicant's permanent disability of the cervical spine, right shoulder, right hip and bilateral knees to pre-existing degenerative changes and 85% to the August 7, 2009 work injury but does not disclose what pre- existing degenerative changes resulted in injury which contributed to the disability or how or why the pre-existing degenerative changes caused the extent of disability attributed to them. (Ex. AA, Report of Dr. Joel Renbaum, February 5, 2020, pp. 10-12; Report, pp. 2-3.)

The AME Dr. Renbaum's apportionment report lacks explanation of the nature of degenerative changes and their contribution to disability, requiring further development of the record.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ10110509 · 2024-11-27 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7In Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [Appeals Board en banc], the Board discussed the following requirements for a medical opinion to be considered substantial evidence of apportionment:

Dr. Anderson's apportionment opinion was found not to be substantial evidence due to lack of detailed reasoning, internal contradictions, and speculative nature, failing the Escobedo standard.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ11431030 · 2024-10-22 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2We now turn to the merits. The defendant has the burden of proof on apportionment. (Lab. Code, § 5705; Pullman Kellogg v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (Normand) (1980) 26 Cal.3d 450, 456 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 170]; Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kopping) (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1115 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (Escobedo) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 613 (Appeals Board en banc).) To meet this burden, the defendant "must demonstrate that, based upon reasonable medical probability, there is a legal basis for apportionment." (Gay v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gay) (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 555, 564 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 817]; see also Escobedo, supra, at p. 620.)

The WCJ and WCAB found that the medical opinion of Dr. Renbaum on apportionment was not substantial medical evidence because it lacked detailed reasoning and explanation required by law, thus denying apportionment and awarding permanent disability without apportionment.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12140821 · 2024-04-12 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3August 9, 2023 supplemental report, do not constitute substantial evidence addressing the issue of apportionment. (Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra.)1

Dr. Abelow's reports did not explain how and why non-industrial factors caused permanent disability or the assigned percentage, thus not substantial evidence; defendant failed to meet burden of proof on apportionment.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12140821 · 2023-06-09 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and Defendant each seek reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 23, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's disability should be rated using "dual occupational variants, 250 and 322" and that 75% of applicant's disability was caused by her industrial injury and 25% would be apportioned to prior non-industrial factors.1

Dr. Abelow's apportionment reports lacked explanation for the change in opinion and failed to explain how and why pre-existing factors caused permanent disability at the time of evaluation, thus not constituting substantial evidence. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings to clarify apportionment and to use the single occupational variant with the higher disability rating.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9616392 · 2021-09-13 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4As noted above, in his July 19, 2020 report Dr. Snook gave a detailed description of applicant's pre-existing degenerative lower back condition. (Joint Exh. EE, p. 4.) However, the doctor did not explain how and why the pre-existing degenerative condition was causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, nor did he explain how and why it was responsible for 30% of applicant's lumbar spine disability. His report is not substantial evidence on the issue of apportionment and cannot be the bases for the F&A. Thus, defendant did not meet its burden of proof and applicant is entitled to an unapportioned award of permanent disability.

Dr. Snook's reports did not explain how and why the pre-existing degenerative condition caused permanent disability or justified the 30% apportionment, so they were not substantial evidence. Defendant did not meet its burden of proof, entitling applicant to an unapportioned award.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ448540 · 2023-04-25 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the Minutes of Hearing and Order Consolidating issued on December 15, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11649621 · 2022-01-21 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings of Facts and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 12, 2021. By the F&O, the WCJ found that the reporting of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) did not constitute substantial evidence and returning to the QME for development of the record would be "fruitless." Submission of the matter was vacated and the parties were ordered to advise the WCJ if they could agree to an agreed medical evaluator (AME) to replace the QME. If the parties could not agree to an AME, the WCJ was to appoint a regular physician per Labor Code1 section 5701. (Lab. Code, § 5701.)

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in finding the QME report was not substantial evidence and that returning to the QME for further development would be fruitless. The Board ordered the matter returned to the trial level for further development of the record, initially with the existing QME, then potentially an AME or regular physician if needed.

Official decision · page 1 →