California WCABLaw firm

Kurlander, Burton & Mack

Kurlander, Burton & Mack is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2007–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at San Francisco. The firm it meets most often is Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (2).

Decisions: 7
Years: 2007–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 1

Applicant 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

Carriers and administrators

Athens Administrators1
Auto Dealers Compensation of California1
Gallagher Bassett1
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company1
Old Republic Insurance Company1
Zurich American Insurance Company1

Where they appear

San Francisco 7

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
2 for the applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ20384548 · 2026-09-04 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on June 3, 2026 by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed on January 15, 2024 as a seasonal helper by defendant, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his left shoulder, and that the record was devoid of substantial medical evidence as to injury AOE/COE, and that the medical evidentiary record needs to be developed. The WCJ further found that applicant’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant contends that applicant’s failure to appear at either depositions, court hearings, or otherwise participate in his claim does not warrant development of the record, and that the findings of fact should be amended to reflect that applicant has failed to carry his burden of establishing injury AOE/COE. Defendant also asserts that the WCJ should have deferred a finding as to the statute of limitations defense without a finding as to either date of injury or injury. Applicant did not file an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) on July 9, 2026 recommending that defendant’s petition be granted and that the finding regarding statute of limitations be amended.
The WCJ found the medical record needed development to determine injury AOE/COE, but the WCAB rescinded the findings and remanded for further proceedings due to lack of proper notice and representation issues.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10813026 · 2024-01-26 · San Francisco District OfficeSJDB voucherremanded
Determinative passage · p.7Thus, we grant reconsideration in order to further consider whether Rule 17309(b) is authorized and consistent with section 139.48. The WCJ did not rule on the validity of Rule 17309(b). Should Rule 17309(b) be deemed valid, we agree with the WCJ that applicant is not entitled to a second RTWSP payment in connection with the March 19, 2017 specific injury.
The Board granted reconsideration to further consider whether Rule 17302(b) is authorized and consistent with section 139.48, and whether applicant is entitled to a second RTWSP benefit for the 2017 injury after having received one for a subsequent 2020 injury.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ11692676 · 2022-10-24 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Campbell stated that after examining applicant and reviewing the medical record, he believed that from a medical perspective, applicant's left thumb and forearm injury claims should be accepted "as meeting AOE/COE criteria." (App. Exh. 2, p. 15.) Based thereon, we agree with the Arbiter that, "The preponderance of the medical evidence confirms that the Applicant sustained an injury to his thumb on or about 4-15-18." (F&O, p. 3, Opinion on Decision.) However, we also agree with Dr. Campbell's conclusion that since, "... the mechanism of injury is one that could have produced shoulder injury to the labrum and undiagnosed shoulder injury can masquerade as neck pain (referred). I probably should re-evaluate him relative to the shoulder." (App. Exh. 1, p. 3.) It is well established that an award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Campbell supporting injury AOE/COE to left forearm and left thumb, based on his examination, history, and medical record review.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10774501 · 2022-10-10 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.21. the applicant, [birth date redacted], while employed on 8/3/2016, as an electrician, Occupational Group Number 380, at San Francisco, California, by Fisk Electric, a Tutor Perini company, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her right shoulder, right elbow, and right wrist, psyche, left shoulder, and left wrist.
The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts including psyche, left shoulder, and left wrist, supported by credible testimony and medical evidence. The Board upheld these findings and rejected additional injury claims not presented at trial.
Official decision · page 2 →
2007-eb-7 · 2007-09-05 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.21 For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the word "amputations," as used in section
The Board held that the term 'amputations' means severance or removal of a limb, part of a limb, or other body appendage, including both traumatic loss and surgical removal during treatment, but the applicant's spinal surgeries do not constitute an amputation under this definition, so the applicant is not entitled to temporary disability indemnity beyond the cap.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10813026 · 2025-05-27 · San Francisco District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b). Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent RTWSP benefit "except where the individual receives a Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Rule 17302(b).)
The Board found no basis to liberally construe 'injury' to include continuing injury and upheld the regulation prohibiting a second RTWSP benefit except for a subsequent injury voucher.
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.

KURLANDER, BURTON & MACK
LAW OFFICES OF KURLANDER, BURTON, & MACK
KURLANDER, BURTON, & MACK
Kurlander, Burton & Mack
Kurlander Burton & Mack
Kurlander & Burton

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 →

Kurlander, Burton & Mack

Decisions

Years

2007–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the defense

2 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ20384548 · 2026-09-04 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on June 3, 2026 by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed on January 15, 2024 as a seasonal helper by defendant, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his left shoulder, and that the record was devoid of substantial medical evidence as to injury AOE/COE, and that the medical evidentiary record needs to be developed. The WCJ further found that applicant’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant contends that applicant’s failure to appear at either depositions, court hearings, or otherwise participate in his claim does not warrant development of the record, and that the findings of fact should be amended to reflect that applicant has failed to carry his burden of establishing injury AOE/COE. Defendant also asserts that the WCJ should have deferred a finding as to the statute of limitations defense without a finding as to either date of injury or injury. Applicant did not file an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) on July 9, 2026 recommending that defendant’s petition be granted and that the finding regarding statute of limitations be amended.

The WCJ found the medical record needed development to determine injury AOE/COE, but the WCAB rescinded the findings and remanded for further proceedings due to lack of proper notice and representation issues.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10813026 · 2024-01-26 · San Francisco District OfficeSJDB voucherremanded

Determinative passage · p.7Thus, we grant reconsideration in order to further consider whether Rule 17309(b) is authorized and consistent with section 139.48. The WCJ did not rule on the validity of Rule 17309(b). Should Rule 17309(b) be deemed valid, we agree with the WCJ that applicant is not entitled to a second RTWSP payment in connection with the March 19, 2017 specific injury.

The Board granted reconsideration to further consider whether Rule 17302(b) is authorized and consistent with section 139.48, and whether applicant is entitled to a second RTWSP benefit for the 2017 injury after having received one for a subsequent 2020 injury.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ11692676 · 2022-10-24 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Campbell stated that after examining applicant and reviewing the medical record, he believed that from a medical perspective, applicant's left thumb and forearm injury claims should be accepted "as meeting AOE/COE criteria." (App. Exh. 2, p. 15.) Based thereon, we agree with the Arbiter that, "The preponderance of the medical evidence confirms that the Applicant sustained an injury to his thumb on or about 4-15-18." (F&O, p. 3, Opinion on Decision.) However, we also agree with Dr. Campbell's conclusion that since, "... the mechanism of injury is one that could have produced shoulder injury to the labrum and undiagnosed shoulder injury can masquerade as neck pain (referred). I probably should re-evaluate him relative to the shoulder." (App. Exh. 1, p. 3.) It is well established that an award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.

The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Campbell supporting injury AOE/COE to left forearm and left thumb, based on his examination, history, and medical record review.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10774501 · 2022-10-10 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.21. the applicant, [birth date redacted], while employed on 8/3/2016, as an electrician, Occupational Group Number 380, at San Francisco, California, by Fisk Electric, a Tutor Perini company, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her right shoulder, right elbow, and right wrist, psyche, left shoulder, and left wrist.

The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts including psyche, left shoulder, and left wrist, supported by credible testimony and medical evidence. The Board upheld these findings and rejected additional injury claims not presented at trial.

Official decision · page 2 →

2007-eb-7 · 2007-09-05 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.21 For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the word "amputations," as used in section

The Board held that the term 'amputations' means severance or removal of a limb, part of a limb, or other body appendage, including both traumatic loss and surgical removal during treatment, but the applicant's spinal surgeries do not constitute an amputation under this definition, so the applicant is not entitled to temporary disability indemnity beyond the cap.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10813026 · 2025-05-27 · San Francisco District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b). Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent RTWSP benefit "except where the individual receives a Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Rule 17302(b).)

The Board found no basis to liberally construe 'injury' to include continuing injury and upheld the regulation prohibiting a second RTWSP benefit except for a subsequent injury voucher.

Official decision · page 1 →