The Rondeau Law Firm

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue2
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58132
• Liens1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 3
• Oakland 2
• Oxnard 2
• Long Beach 1
• Pomona 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 defense
• 2 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

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.

• ADJ13614921 · 2026-02-23 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.18Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not believe that the evidence supports the imposition of sanctions against Petronella, and we grant the Petition for Reconsideration and rescind the F&O and grant the Petition for Disqualification and order that the matter be returned to the Presiding WCJ for assignment to a new WCJ.

  The Appeals Board found insufficient evidence to support the WCJ's imposition of sanctions against lien representative Patrick Petronella and concluded that the WCJ's actions raised doubts about fairness and due process, warranting disqualification and reassignment.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ10290726 · 2024-12-06 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Integrated Pain Care (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of the September 13, 2024 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR), wherein a panel of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found an express agreement existed between lien claimant and defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). We determined that pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5304, the existence of an express agreement between the lien claimant and the defendant obviated Appeals Board jurisdiction over the instant dispute regarding the value of the medical services provided.

  The panel found that the Prudent Buyer Plan and Managed Care Services Agreement created an express agreement between Dr. Martinovsky, Blue Cross, and SCIF, which under Labor Code section 5304 precluded WCAB jurisdiction over the lien dispute.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10290726 · 2024-09-13 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9We therefore conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this dispute because the reimbursement issues herein arose out of treatment rendered pursuant to sections 4600 to 4605 inclusive, and there is an express agreement between SCIF and Dr. Martinovsky fixing the amounts to be paid for medical, surgical or hospital treatment. In so finding, we offer no opinion as to the merits of lien claimant's assertions with respect to reimbursement for services provided as applicant's primary treating physician. The parties remain free to pursue any remedy afforded under the law in an appropriate forum.

  The WCAB lacks jurisdiction because an express agreement fixing payment amounts was made between the provider and insurer, pursuant to Labor Code section 5304 and supported by the chain of contracts doctrine in Streeter.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2024-08-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence in the existing record to find that lien claimant did rebut the presumption "affecting the burden of proof" in section 139.21(g) that her lien claims "and all underlying bills for service and claims for compensation asserted therein, [arose] from the conduct subjecting the physician, practitioner, or provider to suspension..." (Lab. Code, § 139.21(g).)

  The Appeals Board found that lien claimant rebutted the presumption under Labor Code section 139.21(g) because the fraudulent conduct for which she was convicted occurred in 2006, before she began treating workers' compensation patients in 2009, so the liens did not arise from the conduct subjecting her to suspension.

• ADJ3499491 · 2023-10-13 · Oxnard District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813remanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, the WCJ's order awarding attorney fees "in an amount to be adjusted" issued on September 27, 2016. Thereafter, the WCJ properly applied principles of due process of law by issuing a notice of intention with respect to fixing the amount of the fees to be awarded.3 However, both the NIT and the ensuing Order contained errors in identification of the parties to be assessed with the fees, and service of both the NIT and the Order was incomplete. (NIT, at p. 6.)

  The NIT and Order Awarding Attorney Fees contained errors in identification of parties and incomplete service, violating due process. Notice cannot be retroactively effectuated via nunc pro tunc order. Effective and timely service is required before awarding attorney fees.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ3499491 · 2025-08-01 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition as unverified, skeletal, and for failure to describe the statutory grounds for reconsideration. We further note that even if the petition was verified and

  The petition was unverified, skeletal, and failed to describe statutory grounds for reconsideration, warranting dismissal.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2024-11-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The insurance carriers in this consolidated matter seek reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) on August 30, 2024 (2024 Decision), which incorporated the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued by the Appeals Board on April 6, 2020 (2020 Decision). We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and although newly aggrieved by the 2024 Decision, the carriers raise no contentions not previously raised and addressed in the 2024 Decision or 2020 Decision. (See eg., 2020 Decision, pp. 22-26; 2024 Decision, pp. 6-7.)

  The petition for reconsideration was denied because the carriers raised no new contentions beyond those already addressed in prior decisions, and the Appeals Board acted timely under Labor Code section 5909.

• ADJ number not stated · 2023-09-22 · Pomona District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2It is our decision after reconsideration to amend the WCJ's Findings to add findings of fact that John Garbino was an "officer or a director" of Praxsyn Corporation and that he controlled Mesa under section 139.21(a)(3) as an "officer or director" of Praxsyn. The Findings are amended pursuant to the substantial evidence in this record as set forth in the Report that Mesa was the alter

  The Appeals Board found substantial evidence that John Garbino was an officer or director of Praxsyn Corporation and controlled Mesa Pharmacy under Labor Code section 139.21(a)(3).

• ADJ2805730 · 2021-12-10 · 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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.

  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 →

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.

• RONDEAU LAW
• THE RONDEAU LAW FIRM
• The Rondeau Law Firm

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.