California WCABLaw firm

Nyman Turkish

Nyman Turkish is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to QME/AME process (3), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). They were heard most often at Fresno, then Riverside. The firm it meets most often is Albert and Mackenzie (1).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2023–2026
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 10

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 12 of 12 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

Fresno 2
Riverside 2
Lodi 1
Marina del Rey 1
Oakland 1
Redding 1
Sacramento 1
San Diego 1
San Francisco 1
Van Nuys 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 applicant
5 for the defense

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ18236958 · 2026-03-06 · Lodi District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.73. However, the WCJ raised concerns about the amount of the attorney's fees, and the Petitions for Reconsideration raised the issue of the amount of the attorney's fees. Although parties' stipulations should be allowed where possible, as provided for in Weatherall, supra, that approach is not applicable to attorney's fees in a workers' compensation proceeding. This is because it is not the parties' stipulation but rather sections 4903 and 4906 that give the WCAB jurisdiction to set the legal fees of attorneys appearing before it. (See also Cal. Code Reg., title 8, § 10840-10844.) Attorney's fees generally present as a lien against compensation. (Section 4903(a).) "The Legislature has thus spoken clearly and decisively that attorney fees in workers' compensation cases cannot exceed an amount that is `reasonable' and that the WCAB shall be the final arbiter of reasonableness in all cases." (Vierra v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1148, [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1128].) "Once services are rendered, the WCJ may approve, increase or reduce the fees provided for in the agreement, taking into consideration the
The WCAB found that attorney's fees must be reasonable and that the parties must be given an opportunity to be heard on the issue; the prior orders rescinding the Award were vacated because they improperly referenced an email not in evidence and rescinded the entire Award despite no dispute on SIBTF liability; the matter was remanded for further proceedings on attorney's fees.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ20165742 · 2025-07-18 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we will treat applicant's petition as one seeking reconsideration, and applying the removal standard, grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, and substitute new findings of fact that panel 7773036 is invalid and that panel number 7775940 is valid.
The Appeals Board found that the omission of the final digit in the claim number by defendant rendered the QME panel number 7773036 invalid, requiring strict compliance with AD Rule 30 for claim numbers to ensure due process and avoid conflicting panels.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ18027061 · 2025-06-10 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March 20, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed during the cumulative injury period ending May 18, 2023, sustained industrial injury to her low back. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant's primary treating physician (PTP) Mark Zuber, D.C., did not establish a treatment relationship with applicant, nor did secondary treating physicians Adrienne Pasek, Psy.D., and Kasra Massumi, M.D. The WCJ further determined that the comprehensive medical-legal reports from these physicians were obtained in violation of Labor Code1 section 4062.2(a). The WCJ ordered the reports excluded from evidence and barred their submission to properly selected Agreed or Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs).
The Appeals Board found that applicant was entitled to self-procure medical treatment after defendant denied liability and did not offer medical treatment after partial acceptance, thus the treating physicians' reports were admissible and could be submitted to QMEs.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17378619 · 2025-03-24 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred
Determinative passage · p.5Here, based upon our review of the record, including the reports of Dr. Fenison, it appears that although diagnostics and records from Dr. Montgomery and Central Occupational Medicine Providers were provided to Dr. Fenison for review, none of the reports from Dr. Rho or Inland Interventional Medical Associates were provided, or if provided, were not reviewed. In light of this, Dr. Fenison's reporting appears to be incomplete.
The panel found that the QME's reports were incomplete as they did not include review of updated medical records from Dr. Rho documenting complex regional pain syndrome, thus the record was insufficient to support the denial of permanent disability and further development was required.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14364236 · 2024-08-26 · Redding District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2On June 10, 2024, the WCJ issued her Findings of Fact, determining that Dr. Sonu was not disqualified as the QME, and that the QME was not unavailable for cross-examination. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision noted the QME's detailed physical findings in the February 7, 2023 report, as well as the attestations of the QME that he had personally accomplished a physical examination of the applicant. (Opinion on Decision, p. 3.) The WCJ further noted that applicant did not promptly raise the issue of the adequacy of the examination, waiting more than one year to offer any objection to the evaluation, as set forth in his April 1, 2024 DOR. With respect to the availability of the QME for deposition, the WCJ noted that applicant had the burden of proving unavailability of the QME but had offered no evidence in support of that contention. (Id. at p. 4.)
The WCJ found the QME's physical examination credible based on detailed findings and attestations, and applicant failed to prove unavailability for deposition; removal standard not met.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ17029088 · 2024-03-18 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Here, there is no dispute that defendant's panel QME request listed an incorrect claim number. Because panel QME requests are available in litigated and non-litigated cases, a case number is not required to obtain a panel of QMEs. Rather, the issuance of a panel requires a claim number as a means for the parties and the Medical Unit to identify a claim and any prior panels that may have issued with respect to that claim.
The panel obtained by defendant was invalid due to incorrect claim number and failure to timely serve, while the panel obtained by applicant was valid and applicable.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ15208194 · 2026-06-04 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.
The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ decision, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings on the proposed settlement.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17735002 · 2025-12-22 · San Diego 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 stated below, we will deny reconsideration.
The Appeals Board found the petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission and denied the petition on the merits because the attorney's fee demand was defective and unsupported by evidence of additional fees or penalties owed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18454068 · 2025-11-06 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on August 13, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was issued without creating a record or explaining the need for further development, violating due process and causing irreparable harm; removal was proper to allow record creation and protect due process rights.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19204463 · 2025-03-07 · Van Nuys 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18182458 · 2025-03-05 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on December 2, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13140605 · 2023-09-01 · Fresno 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 denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
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.

NYMAN TURKISH
NYMAN TURKISH, PC
Nyman Turkish
NYMAN TURKISH, P.C.
NYMAN TURKISH PC

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 →

Nyman Turkish

Decisions

Years

2023–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

5 for the defense

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ18236958 · 2026-03-06 · Lodi District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.73. However, the WCJ raised concerns about the amount of the attorney's fees, and the Petitions for Reconsideration raised the issue of the amount of the attorney's fees. Although parties' stipulations should be allowed where possible, as provided for in Weatherall, supra, that approach is not applicable to attorney's fees in a workers' compensation proceeding. This is because it is not the parties' stipulation but rather sections 4903 and 4906 that give the WCAB jurisdiction to set the legal fees of attorneys appearing before it. (See also Cal. Code Reg., title 8, § 10840-10844.) Attorney's fees generally present as a lien against compensation. (Section 4903(a).) "The Legislature has thus spoken clearly and decisively that attorney fees in workers' compensation cases cannot exceed an amount that is `reasonable' and that the WCAB shall be the final arbiter of reasonableness in all cases." (Vierra v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1148, [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1128].) "Once services are rendered, the WCJ may approve, increase or reduce the fees provided for in the agreement, taking into consideration the

The WCAB found that attorney's fees must be reasonable and that the parties must be given an opportunity to be heard on the issue; the prior orders rescinding the Award were vacated because they improperly referenced an email not in evidence and rescinded the entire Award despite no dispute on SIBTF liability; the matter was remanded for further proceedings on attorney's fees.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ20165742 · 2025-07-18 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we will treat applicant's petition as one seeking reconsideration, and applying the removal standard, grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, and substitute new findings of fact that panel 7773036 is invalid and that panel number 7775940 is valid.

The Appeals Board found that the omission of the final digit in the claim number by defendant rendered the QME panel number 7773036 invalid, requiring strict compliance with AD Rule 30 for claim numbers to ensure due process and avoid conflicting panels.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ18027061 · 2025-06-10 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March 20, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed during the cumulative injury period ending May 18, 2023, sustained industrial injury to her low back. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant's primary treating physician (PTP) Mark Zuber, D.C., did not establish a treatment relationship with applicant, nor did secondary treating physicians Adrienne Pasek, Psy.D., and Kasra Massumi, M.D. The WCJ further determined that the comprehensive medical-legal reports from these physicians were obtained in violation of Labor Code1 section 4062.2(a). The WCJ ordered the reports excluded from evidence and barred their submission to properly selected Agreed or Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs).

The Appeals Board found that applicant was entitled to self-procure medical treatment after defendant denied liability and did not offer medical treatment after partial acceptance, thus the treating physicians' reports were admissible and could be submitted to QMEs.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17378619 · 2025-03-24 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

Determinative passage · p.5Here, based upon our review of the record, including the reports of Dr. Fenison, it appears that although diagnostics and records from Dr. Montgomery and Central Occupational Medicine Providers were provided to Dr. Fenison for review, none of the reports from Dr. Rho or Inland Interventional Medical Associates were provided, or if provided, were not reviewed. In light of this, Dr. Fenison's reporting appears to be incomplete.

The panel found that the QME's reports were incomplete as they did not include review of updated medical records from Dr. Rho documenting complex regional pain syndrome, thus the record was insufficient to support the denial of permanent disability and further development was required.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14364236 · 2024-08-26 · Redding District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2On June 10, 2024, the WCJ issued her Findings of Fact, determining that Dr. Sonu was not disqualified as the QME, and that the QME was not unavailable for cross-examination. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision noted the QME's detailed physical findings in the February 7, 2023 report, as well as the attestations of the QME that he had personally accomplished a physical examination of the applicant. (Opinion on Decision, p. 3.) The WCJ further noted that applicant did not promptly raise the issue of the adequacy of the examination, waiting more than one year to offer any objection to the evaluation, as set forth in his April 1, 2024 DOR. With respect to the availability of the QME for deposition, the WCJ noted that applicant had the burden of proving unavailability of the QME but had offered no evidence in support of that contention. (Id. at p. 4.)

The WCJ found the QME's physical examination credible based on detailed findings and attestations, and applicant failed to prove unavailability for deposition; removal standard not met.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ17029088 · 2024-03-18 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Here, there is no dispute that defendant's panel QME request listed an incorrect claim number. Because panel QME requests are available in litigated and non-litigated cases, a case number is not required to obtain a panel of QMEs. Rather, the issuance of a panel requires a claim number as a means for the parties and the Medical Unit to identify a claim and any prior panels that may have issued with respect to that claim.

The panel obtained by defendant was invalid due to incorrect claim number and failure to timely serve, while the panel obtained by applicant was valid and applicable.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ15208194 · 2026-06-04 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ decision, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings on the proposed settlement.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17735002 · 2025-12-22 · San Diego 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 stated below, we will deny reconsideration.

The Appeals Board found the petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission and denied the petition on the merits because the attorney's fee demand was defective and unsupported by evidence of additional fees or penalties owed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18454068 · 2025-11-06 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on August 13, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was issued without creating a record or explaining the need for further development, violating due process and causing irreparable harm; removal was proper to allow record creation and protect due process rights.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19204463 · 2025-03-07 · Van Nuys 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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18182458 · 2025-03-05 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on December 2, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13140605 · 2023-09-01 · Fresno 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 denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →