California WCABLaw firm

McMonagle Steinberg

McMonagle Steinberg is named in 6 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes run to Apportionment (2), Jurisdiction / venue (2) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Sacramento. The firm it meets most often is Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen (1).

Decisions: 6
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 1

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 5 of 6 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

2 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 6

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.

5 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ12511510 · 2025-05-02 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 28, 2025 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the right ear, and claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the left ear, while employed on June 21, 2019, as a panel installer. The WCJ further found that the injury herein caused 43% permanent disability without apportionment.
The WCJ found no apportionment due to lack of substantial medical evidence from Dr. Ward, whose apportionment opinion was inadequately explained and unsupported by medical rationale. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review this issue.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7295268 · 2024-10-28 · Sacramento District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Obtaining advised consent is a cornerstone of the Attorney-Client relationship. Applicant credibly testified that he was not advised Petitioner would be seeking a 15% fee when they formed the relationship. He also credibly testified that he felt the agreement should be limited by the Fee Statement he signed and that ifhe had been made aware of the agreement he would have asked for a 12% fee when the underlying case settled. (MOH-SOE Page 3) Petitioner failed to obtain advised consent to the requested.
The WCJ's award of a 12% attorney's fee was reasonable based on the evidence, including the failure of petitioner to obtain advised consent for a 15% fee and lack of evidence of case complexity or additional discovery.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ8368911 · 2024-04-30 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2For the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, the medical reports and testimony of PQME Dr. Wantuch were not substantial evidence to support applicant's claim of industrial injury. Accordingly, we deny applicant's petition for reconsideration.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the medical reports of PQME Dr. Wantuch were not substantial evidence to support the claim, while Dr. Bates's reports were substantial and well-reasoned, showing the injury was due to pre-existing bipolar disorder, not industrial injury.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ15137561 · 2024-03-13 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.21.) The WCJ ordered the matter off calendar over defense objection. The WCJ further appended to the Minutes a list of the various assertions of defendant with respect to the standing of the parties, and the applicability of the statute of limitations. (Id. at p. 2.) On May 24, 2023, defendant filed the instant Petition for Removal (Petition) averring threshold issues of the identity of the parties claiming benefits, their standing, if any, and the need to adjudicate the issue of whether compensation is barred by the running of the statute of limitations. Defendant contends the August 6, 2021 Application for Adjudication was filed after decedent's date of death, and was not signed by decedent. Defendant therefore asserts that applicant's counsel lacks the standing to file the August 6, 2021 application, and that there is no "party" identified in the record as claiming benefits. Defendant further avers that the application for death benefits filed on December 21, 2021, was filed more than one year from the date of death
The Appeals Board found ambiguity and lack of clarity in the pleadings regarding the identity of the applicant and standing, and the applicability of the statute of limitations, warranting further proceedings to clarify these threshold issues.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ9272943 · 2023-10-06 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Petitioner's Contentions: Petitioner contends that the Arbitrator erred by: 1) finding Applicant was excluded from Workers' Compensation coverage because he was an officer of the corporation who had opted out of coverage; 2) finding that Applicant signed a valid Corporate Officers or Directors Exclusion Letter on February 28, 2002; 3) finding that Applicant is bound by the terms of said letter because he had constructive if not actual knowledge of the meaning of said letter; and 4) finding that Applicant's becoming a shareholder and officer of the corporation and his exclusion from Workers' Compensation benefits was not a sham perpetrated by the majority shareholder and president.
The panel found that the applicant was excluded from workers' compensation coverage because he was a corporate officer who signed a valid exclusion letter knowingly and voluntarily, and that the offer of officer status was not a sham to avoid coverage.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ10048474 · 2022-06-15 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of March 17, 2020, the Workers' Compensation Judge ("WCJ") found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury to her right knee and left knee on March 6, 2015, that Dr. James Han is the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator ("PQME"), and that the injury resulted in permanent disability of 21%, after 60% apportionment to "other factors" of permanent disability under Labor Code section 4663(c).
The Appeals Board found Dr. Han's medical reports substantial evidence supporting 60% apportionment to non-industrial factors, affirming the WCJ's decision and rejecting the applicant's contention based on Hikida.
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.

MCMONAGLE STEINBERG
MCMONAGLE, STEINBERG & HESTER
McMonagle Steinberg

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 →

McMonagle Steinberg

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 6 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.

ADJ12511510 · 2025-05-02 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 28, 2025 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the right ear, and claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the left ear, while employed on June 21, 2019, as a panel installer. The WCJ further found that the injury herein caused 43% permanent disability without apportionment.

The WCJ found no apportionment due to lack of substantial medical evidence from Dr. Ward, whose apportionment opinion was inadequately explained and unsupported by medical rationale. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review this issue.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7295268 · 2024-10-28 · Sacramento District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Obtaining advised consent is a cornerstone of the Attorney-Client relationship. Applicant credibly testified that he was not advised Petitioner would be seeking a 15% fee when they formed the relationship. He also credibly testified that he felt the agreement should be limited by the Fee Statement he signed and that ifhe had been made aware of the agreement he would have asked for a 12% fee when the underlying case settled. (MOH-SOE Page 3) Petitioner failed to obtain advised consent to the requested.

The WCJ's award of a 12% attorney's fee was reasonable based on the evidence, including the failure of petitioner to obtain advised consent for a 15% fee and lack of evidence of case complexity or additional discovery.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ8368911 · 2024-04-30 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2For the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, the medical reports and testimony of PQME Dr. Wantuch were not substantial evidence to support applicant's claim of industrial injury. Accordingly, we deny applicant's petition for reconsideration.

The WCJ and WCAB found that the medical reports of PQME Dr. Wantuch were not substantial evidence to support the claim, while Dr. Bates's reports were substantial and well-reasoned, showing the injury was due to pre-existing bipolar disorder, not industrial injury.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ15137561 · 2024-03-13 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.21.) The WCJ ordered the matter off calendar over defense objection. The WCJ further appended to the Minutes a list of the various assertions of defendant with respect to the standing of the parties, and the applicability of the statute of limitations. (Id. at p. 2.) On May 24, 2023, defendant filed the instant Petition for Removal (Petition) averring threshold issues of the identity of the parties claiming benefits, their standing, if any, and the need to adjudicate the issue of whether compensation is barred by the running of the statute of limitations. Defendant contends the August 6, 2021 Application for Adjudication was filed after decedent's date of death, and was not signed by decedent. Defendant therefore asserts that applicant's counsel lacks the standing to file the August 6, 2021 application, and that there is no "party" identified in the record as claiming benefits. Defendant further avers that the application for death benefits filed on December 21, 2021, was filed more than one year from the date of death

The Appeals Board found ambiguity and lack of clarity in the pleadings regarding the identity of the applicant and standing, and the applicability of the statute of limitations, warranting further proceedings to clarify these threshold issues.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ9272943 · 2023-10-06 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Petitioner's Contentions: Petitioner contends that the Arbitrator erred by: 1) finding Applicant was excluded from Workers' Compensation coverage because he was an officer of the corporation who had opted out of coverage; 2) finding that Applicant signed a valid Corporate Officers or Directors Exclusion Letter on February 28, 2002; 3) finding that Applicant is bound by the terms of said letter because he had constructive if not actual knowledge of the meaning of said letter; and 4) finding that Applicant's becoming a shareholder and officer of the corporation and his exclusion from Workers' Compensation benefits was not a sham perpetrated by the majority shareholder and president.

The panel found that the applicant was excluded from workers' compensation coverage because he was a corporate officer who signed a valid exclusion letter knowingly and voluntarily, and that the offer of officer status was not a sham to avoid coverage.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ10048474 · 2022-06-15 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of March 17, 2020, the Workers' Compensation Judge ("WCJ") found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury to her right knee and left knee on March 6, 2015, that Dr. James Han is the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator ("PQME"), and that the injury resulted in permanent disability of 21%, after 60% apportionment to "other factors" of permanent disability under Labor Code section 4663(c).

The Appeals Board found Dr. Han's medical reports substantial evidence supporting 60% apportionment to non-industrial factors, affirming the WCJ's decision and rejecting the applicant's contention based on Hikida.

Official decision · page 1 →