Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

What they litigate

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

• Medical treatment / UR / IMR2
• Discrimination under Labor Code §132a1
• QME/AME process1
• Permanent disability rating1

Where they appear

• San Francisco 3
• Oakland 2
• Santa Rosa 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.

• 4 for the applicant
• 1 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.

• ADJ8833300 · 2026-07-31 · San Francisco District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on June 16, 2021, by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that defendant did not violate Labor Code section 132a and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his Labor Code section 132a petition. Applicant contends that he met his burden to establish a prima facie claim that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a and that defendant did not meet its burden to show a reasonable business necessity for its actions. We have received an Answer from defendant. We received a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) from the WCJ, recommending that we deny reconsideration. We issued an order granting reconsideration pending further review of the entire record. 1 Thereafter, the parties successfully participated in voluntary mediation at the Appeals Board. Subsequently, the parties advised that a proposed settlement had been reached. In order to expedite review and approval of the parties’ settlement agreement, we will rescind the June 16, 2021 Findings and Order and return this matter to the trial level to consider the settlement. The assigned WCJ may conduct such further proceedings as is deemed appropriate.

  The WCJ found no violation of Labor Code section 132a and the Appeals Board did not rule on the merits but rescinded the prior order and returned the matter for settlement consideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ22209281 · 2026-07-10 · San Francisco District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.68.) Thus, based upon the language of the ADR Agreement, applicant was within his rights when he sought reconsideration of the January 8, 2026 F&O. Defendant further asserts that applicant “did not suffer prejudice” and was not “denied due process” as applicant “agreed to strike language from the cover letter” to Dr. Teichera on the issue of varicose veins but sought to designate Dr. Noriega instead as he was “unhappy with [Dr. Teicheira’s] initial opinion[.]” (Petition, p. 10.) We disagree. As iterated in our O&O, there was no stipulation between the parties for Dr. Teicheira to act as IME on all of applicant’s claimed injuries. Further, applicant agreed to withhold information pertaining to the cumulative injury in anticipation of another evaluation with a different IME. This was prejudicial to applicant in that he was unable to provide his position on the

  Applicant was entitled to designate Dr. Noriega as IME for the cumulative injury claim because applicant was prejudiced by being unable to provide information or raise inquiries to Dr. Teichera, violating due process rights. The Appeals Board held that denying a separate IME would violate due process and that applicant was within rights under the ADR Agreement to seek reconsideration and removal.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ22209281 · 2026-05-15 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on January 8, 2026 wherein the WCA found that applicant was not entitled to an evaluation with Robert Noriega, M.D. for the cumulative injury claim of March 26, 2007 through June 23, 2025 because applicant had already been evaluated by Independent Medical Examiner (IME), David Teicheira, M.D., who was selected by applicant to address his September 21, 2023 and January 17, 2024 injury claims.

  Applicant was prejudiced by defendant's objection to Dr. Teicheira's qualifications to address varicose vein injuries, which led to withholding cumulative injury information and necessitated a separate IME with Dr. Noriega to protect applicant's due process rights.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20141060 · 2025-01-21 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On October 11, 2024, the WCA issued his F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant's injury resulted in 33 percent permanent disability. The WCA's Opinion on Decision reviewed the reporting of both IME Dr. Stark as well as Dr. D'Amico but found the reporting of Dr. Stark to be the more persuasive. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6-8.) Dr. Stark determined that applicant's "strict" rating pursuant to the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Edition (AMA Guides), was eight percent impairment using a Diagnosis Related Estimate (DRE) approach. However, Dr. Stark further opined that the impairment derived from the DRE approach did not accurately represent applicant's functional loss, including applicant's losses in capacity for lifting. (Id. at p. 6.) Thus, Dr. Stark rated applicant's disability by analogy to hernia using AMA Guides Table 6-9 and assessed 15 percent impairment. (Ibid.) When adjusted by the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, applicant's impairment rated to 33 percent permanent disability. (Finding of Fact No. 5; Award No. "a".)

  The panel found Dr. Stark's opinion persuasive that the strict AMA Guides rating did not accurately reflect applicant's disability due to significant lifting capacity loss, and that the alternative rating by analogy to hernia injury was appropriate and supported by substantial medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ15599962 · 2024-11-26 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9In this matter, it is true that applicant continued to conduct discovery with his IME after the termination of the ADR agreement. (Exhibit H, Invoice, May 15, 2021; Exhibit I, Report of Eduardo Lin, July 14, 2021; Exhibit S, Medical Cover Letter, July 13, 2021, Exhibit T, Notice of Deposition, April 26, 2021.) [...] In light of the overall record as described above, we are persuaded that the preponderance of evidence establishes that the parties in this case must continue using IMEs as mandated by the ADR agreement. We will amend the Findings of Fact dated April 21, 2022 to rescind the WCJ's findings that that defendant waived the argument that the IME process described in the ADR agreement controls the medical-legal process herein, and that special circumstances exist that render it unjust to enforce the provisions of the ADR contract regarding the usage of IMEs. We will replace those findings with our findings to the contrary, and we will add our own finding that resolves the issue presented at trial, i.e., the parties shall continue using IMEs pursuant to the ADR agreement.

  The Appeals Board found that the preponderance of evidence supports continuing the use of IMEs as mandated by the ADR agreement, rescinding the WCJ's contrary findings and rejecting the argument that it would be unjust to enforce the ADR provisions regarding IMEs.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ21271903 · 2026-08-20 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of submission issued on April 9, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter is not ripe for adjudication. We have received an Answer from applicant. The presiding WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal and rescind the order of submission as the WCJ who conducted the expedited hearing is no longer available to issue a decision in this matter. The presiding WCJ requests return of this matter to the trial level for reassignment. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the April 9, 2026 order of submission and return this matter to the presiding WCJ for reassignment. Removal 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

  Removal granted because the WCJ who conducted the expedited hearing was no longer available to issue a decision, and removal is appropriate to avoid substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  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.

• RAINS LUCIA STERN ST. PHALLE & SILVER, PC
• RAINS LUCIA STERN ST. PHALLE & SILVER PC
• RAINS, LUCIA, STERN, ST. PHALLE & SILVER
• Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
• RAINS LUCIA STERN ST. PHALLE & SILVER
• Rains Lucia Stern
• Rains Lucia

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.