California WCABLaw firm

Uriarte & Carr

Uriarte & Carr is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (1) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Stockton.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 2
District offices: 2

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 6
Stockton 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.

7 for the defense

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ10089400 · 2022-04-25 · Stockton District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Both Stipulations with Request for Award reflect that they were based on ratings of the reporting from the AME Dr. Pang. The parties presumably choose an AME because of the AME's expertise and neutrality. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].) We will follow the opinions of the AME unless good cause exists to find their opinion unpersuasive. (Ibid.)
The permanent disability ratings were based on the AME Dr. Pang's thorough and comprehensive evaluation, and there was no basis to disturb the WCJ's conclusion that the stipulations were adequate.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ9026031 · 2021-02-09 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.37) The issue of permanent and stationary date is deferred, with jurisdiction reserved.
The WCAB found it premature to decide the permanent and stationary date as the issue of permanent disability was deferred and reserved jurisdiction for future determination.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ19948405 · 2026-01-16 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On October 31, 2025, the presiding workers' compensation administration law judge (PWCJ) issued an order changing venue of this matter to the Oakland district office. Despite this order, applicant in pro per filed a Petition for Disqualification of the assigned WCJ in the San Francisco district office. In her Report and Recommendation (Report), the San Francisco WCJ explained in relevant part that the issue was now moot because the case was to be transferred to the Oakland district office. As the case is no longer assigned to the San Francisco WCJ, the Petition for Disqualification is moot, and we will dismiss it.
The Petition for Disqualification was moot because the case was no longer assigned to the San Francisco WCJ after venue was changed to Oakland.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11058868 · 2022-03-30 · Oakland 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 that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12961322 · 2021-09-27 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, defendant's 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 for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's order was not a final decision, and the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13473354 · 2021-05-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration/Removal, applicant's 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 for the reasons discussed below, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The WCJ's decision included a threshold issue making it a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal, and the defendant's petition did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3101200 · 2021-04-09 · 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, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny reconsideration. We also note the Petition for Reconsideration is skeletal and makes allegations of fraud and bias against the WCJ which are wholly unsubstantiated rendering it subject to dismissal or denial.
The petition for reconsideration was skeletal, failed to substantiate claims of fraud and bias, and did not fairly state all material evidence, thus subject to dismissal or denial.
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.

URIARTE & CARR
URIARTE & CARR LLP

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

7 for the defense

Counted over 7 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.

ADJ10089400 · 2022-04-25 · Stockton District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Both Stipulations with Request for Award reflect that they were based on ratings of the reporting from the AME Dr. Pang. The parties presumably choose an AME because of the AME's expertise and neutrality. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].) We will follow the opinions of the AME unless good cause exists to find their opinion unpersuasive. (Ibid.)

The permanent disability ratings were based on the AME Dr. Pang's thorough and comprehensive evaluation, and there was no basis to disturb the WCJ's conclusion that the stipulations were adequate.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ9026031 · 2021-02-09 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.37) The issue of permanent and stationary date is deferred, with jurisdiction reserved.

The WCAB found it premature to decide the permanent and stationary date as the issue of permanent disability was deferred and reserved jurisdiction for future determination.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ19948405 · 2026-01-16 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On October 31, 2025, the presiding workers' compensation administration law judge (PWCJ) issued an order changing venue of this matter to the Oakland district office. Despite this order, applicant in pro per filed a Petition for Disqualification of the assigned WCJ in the San Francisco district office. In her Report and Recommendation (Report), the San Francisco WCJ explained in relevant part that the issue was now moot because the case was to be transferred to the Oakland district office. As the case is no longer assigned to the San Francisco WCJ, the Petition for Disqualification is moot, and we will dismiss it.

The Petition for Disqualification was moot because the case was no longer assigned to the San Francisco WCJ after venue was changed to Oakland.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11058868 · 2022-03-30 · Oakland 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 that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12961322 · 2021-09-27 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, defendant's 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 for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's order was not a final decision, and the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13473354 · 2021-05-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration/Removal, applicant's 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 for the reasons discussed below, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The WCJ's decision included a threshold issue making it a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal, and the defendant's petition did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3101200 · 2021-04-09 · 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, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny reconsideration. We also note the Petition for Reconsideration is skeletal and makes allegations of fraud and bias against the WCJ which are wholly unsubstantiated rendering it subject to dismissal or denial.

The petition for reconsideration was skeletal, failed to substantiate claims of fraud and bias, and did not fairly state all material evidence, thus subject to dismissal or denial.

Official decision · page 1 →