California WCABLaw firm

Rancano & Rancano

Rancano & Rancano is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2014–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Psyche AOE/COE (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Lodi, then Stockton. The firm it meets most often is Coleman, Chavez & Associates (1).

Decisions: 7
Years: 2014–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 3

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

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

Lodi 3
Stockton 3
Sacramento 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.

2 for the applicant
2 for the defense
2 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.

ADJ7070471 · 2024-12-16 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 10, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's claimed August 16, 2011 injury to the bilateral shoulders and lumbar spine (ADJ10027311) was a separate and distinct injury and not a compensable consequence of applicant's claimed cumulative injury to the bilateral knees, bilateral shoulders, and lumbar spine (ADJ7070471).
The WCJ's original decision was based on speculation and inconsistent medical reports from Dr. Potter, requiring further development of the record to clarify causation and injury details.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10524351 · 2024-06-11 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or alternatively removal of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 26, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that based on the April 19, 2021 order of dismissal, the WCAB no longer has jurisdiction to address applicant's September 30, 2021 "Petition to Re-Open and Re- Activate Applicant's Worker's Compensation Claim."
The WCAB found that the petition to re-open was essentially a petition to set aside the order of dismissal and that the WCAB retains jurisdiction to reconsider and allow further proceedings, favoring adjudication on the merits and due process rights.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12095988 · 2021-12-13 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)
The WCJ properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. and the applicant's credible testimony to find temporary disability from 18 May 2021 through 17 August 2021, with no rebuttal evidence from defendant.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7995806 · 2014-06-12 · Stockton District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded
Determinative passage · p.121 4600(h) that home health care services be prescribed. Thus, we hold that the prescription required by
The Appeals Board held that home health care services must be prescribed by a physician either by oral referral communicated directly to the employer or by a signed and dated written order. The WCJ's Findings and Award were rescinded because the prescription requirement was not met as required by Labor Code section 4600(h).
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ11183362 · 2026-05-22 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) approved by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 20, 2025.
The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because the record was undeveloped to evaluate the applicant's contentions about inadequate representation and terms of the compromise and release. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to consider the Petition as a Petition to Set Aside the OACR with a full record.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18359573 · 2024-05-13 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant1 seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 14, 2024.2
The petition was dismissed as premature because the applicant's understanding of the settlement was not assessed, and the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine if the settlement was valid and adequate.
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.

Rancano & Rancano
RANCANO & RANCANO
RANCANO LAW
Rancano Law

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 →

Rancano & Rancano

Decisions

Years

2014–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

2 for the applicant

2 for the defense

2 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.

ADJ7070471 · 2024-12-16 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 10, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's claimed August 16, 2011 injury to the bilateral shoulders and lumbar spine (ADJ10027311) was a separate and distinct injury and not a compensable consequence of applicant's claimed cumulative injury to the bilateral knees, bilateral shoulders, and lumbar spine (ADJ7070471).

The WCJ's original decision was based on speculation and inconsistent medical reports from Dr. Potter, requiring further development of the record to clarify causation and injury details.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10524351 · 2024-06-11 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or alternatively removal of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 26, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that based on the April 19, 2021 order of dismissal, the WCAB no longer has jurisdiction to address applicant's September 30, 2021 "Petition to Re-Open and Re- Activate Applicant's Worker's Compensation Claim."

The WCAB found that the petition to re-open was essentially a petition to set aside the order of dismissal and that the WCAB retains jurisdiction to reconsider and allow further proceedings, favoring adjudication on the merits and due process rights.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12095988 · 2021-12-13 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)

The WCJ properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. and the applicant's credible testimony to find temporary disability from 18 May 2021 through 17 August 2021, with no rebuttal evidence from defendant.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7995806 · 2014-06-12 · Stockton District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

Determinative passage · p.121 4600(h) that home health care services be prescribed. Thus, we hold that the prescription required by

The Appeals Board held that home health care services must be prescribed by a physician either by oral referral communicated directly to the employer or by a signed and dated written order. The WCJ's Findings and Award were rescinded because the prescription requirement was not met as required by Labor Code section 4600(h).

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ11183362 · 2026-05-22 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) approved by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 20, 2025.

The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because the record was undeveloped to evaluate the applicant's contentions about inadequate representation and terms of the compromise and release. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to consider the Petition as a Petition to Set Aside the OACR with a full record.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18359573 · 2024-05-13 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant1 seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 14, 2024.2

The petition was dismissed as premature because the applicant's understanding of the settlement was not assessed, and the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine if the settlement was valid and adequate.

Official decision · page 1 →