California WCABLaw firm

The Ramirez Firm

The Ramirez Firm is named in 14 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes are Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Riverside. The firm it meets most often is Michael Sullivan & Associates (2).

Decisions: 14
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 1
District offices: 1

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.

Jurisdiction / venue1

Who they face

4 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

Riverside 14

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.

13 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 14 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.

ADJ17764448 · 2026-02-13 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.1A workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued a Findings and Orders in this matter served on December 15, 2025. In the decision, it was found that applicant's claim that while employed on July 13, 2022, as an HVAC technician, he sustained industrial injury to his neck, back and "body systems, specifically stress and anxiety" was barred by the Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) post-termination defense, which states, in pertinent part:
The WCJ found the claim barred by the post-termination defense because the employer lacked notice of injury prior to termination; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record and analyze notice of injury under relevant precedent.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ20203816 · 2025-10-07 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on June 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
Petition for removal was withdrawn after parties entered into a Compromise and Release, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16696159 · 2025-09-23 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that he has not completed discovery. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we dismiss removal as untimely or deny removal on the merits. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, the petition was not timely filed and thus, it will be dismissed. However, even if we were to review the petition on the merits, it would be denied as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the
The petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 35 days after the scheduling order, exceeding the 20-day limit under WCAB Rule 10955. On the merits, removal was denied as the applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17705798 · 2024-12-02 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.
The petition was dismissed because the order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order, and reconsideration is only proper for final orders. Removal was denied because the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm, significant prejudice, or that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ17850714 · 2024-12-02 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.
The petition was dismissed because it challenged a non-final order taking the matter off calendar, which is not subject to reconsideration under the law.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ18430275 · 2024-11-18 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.
The petition was dismissed because the order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order, and reconsideration is only proper for final orders. The petitioner failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice to justify removal.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ17970013 · 2024-11-08 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it challenged a non-final order taking the matter off calendar, which is not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903, and 5909, and related regulations. The petition for removal was denied because the applicant failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18725678 · 2024-11-05 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.
The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order, which is not subject to reconsideration, and denied removal because the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ18725678 · 2024-11-05 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.
The petition was dismissed because it sought reconsideration of a non-final order, which is not permitted under the law, and removal was denied as the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ17969942 · 2024-03-15 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration/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 dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's order was not a final decision determining substantive rights or a threshold issue, and the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12727715 · 2023-01-17 · Riverside 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, the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.
The petition for reconsideration was filed after the 25-day deadline and was not received by the WCAB within the allowed time, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11544222 · 2022-11-10 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and/or 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will affirm the Joint Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on July 19, 2022.
The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and affirmed the WCJ's findings after reconsideration, applying the removal standard to interlocutory issues.
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.

The Ramirez Firm
THE RAMIREZ FIRM
THE RAMIREZ LAW FIRM
RAMIREZ LAW FIRM

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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

13 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 14 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.

ADJ17764448 · 2026-02-13 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.1A workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued a Findings and Orders in this matter served on December 15, 2025. In the decision, it was found that applicant's claim that while employed on July 13, 2022, as an HVAC technician, he sustained industrial injury to his neck, back and "body systems, specifically stress and anxiety" was barred by the Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) post-termination defense, which states, in pertinent part:

The WCJ found the claim barred by the post-termination defense because the employer lacked notice of injury prior to termination; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record and analyze notice of injury under relevant precedent.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ20203816 · 2025-10-07 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on June 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

Petition for removal was withdrawn after parties entered into a Compromise and Release, so the petition was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16696159 · 2025-09-23 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that he has not completed discovery. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we dismiss removal as untimely or deny removal on the merits. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, the petition was not timely filed and thus, it will be dismissed. However, even if we were to review the petition on the merits, it would be denied as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the

The petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 35 days after the scheduling order, exceeding the 20-day limit under WCAB Rule 10955. On the merits, removal was denied as the applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17705798 · 2024-12-02 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.

The petition was dismissed because the order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order, and reconsideration is only proper for final orders. Removal was denied because the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm, significant prejudice, or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ17850714 · 2024-12-02 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.

The petition was dismissed because it challenged a non-final order taking the matter off calendar, which is not subject to reconsideration under the law.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ18430275 · 2024-11-18 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.

The petition was dismissed because the order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order, and reconsideration is only proper for final orders. The petitioner failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice to justify removal.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ17970013 · 2024-11-08 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it challenged a non-final order taking the matter off calendar, which is not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903, and 5909, and related regulations. The petition for removal was denied because the applicant failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18725678 · 2024-11-05 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.

The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order, which is not subject to reconsideration, and denied removal because the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ18725678 · 2024-11-05 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.

The petition was dismissed because it sought reconsideration of a non-final order, which is not permitted under the law, and removal was denied as the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ17969942 · 2024-03-15 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration/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 dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's order was not a final decision determining substantive rights or a threshold issue, and the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12727715 · 2023-01-17 · Riverside 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, the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.

The petition for reconsideration was filed after the 25-day deadline and was not received by the WCAB within the allowed time, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11544222 · 2022-11-10 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and/or 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will affirm the Joint Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on July 19, 2022.

The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and affirmed the WCJ's findings after reconsideration, applying the removal standard to interlocutory issues.

Official decision · page 1 →