California WCABLaw firm

The Wenderoff Law Group

The Wenderoff Law Group is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), QME/AME process (1) and Temporary disability (1). They were heard most often at Marina del Rey, then Van Nuys.

Decisions: 13
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 7

What they litigate

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

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Marina del Rey 3
Van Nuys 3
San Bernardino 2
Santa Ana 2
Long Beach 1
Los Angeles 1
San Diego 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.

8 for the defense
3 for the applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 13 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.

ADJ18031412 · 2026-06-26 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Medland Medical seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 6, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that, while employed as a Machine Operator/Packer, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her bilateral arms, bilateral hands, back, bilateral hips, and bilateral legs. The WCJ further found that the case in chief settled via Compromise and Release with an Order Approving issuing October 14, 2025; that lien claimant did not meet the burden of proof on the injury AOE/COE, such that the lien is disallowed in its entirety. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that lien claimant's lien be disallowed in its entirety.
The lien claimant failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish injury AOE/COE based on the medical record and evidentiary record submitted. The ultimate conclusion of industrial causation was deferred to the Trier of Fact, and the WCJ found no sufficient evidence to support the lien claimant's claim.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11202213 · 2025-05-09 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.5The conclusions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Wood with respect to causation of injury do not constitute substantial medical evidence without further explanation. The medical evaluators do not question applicant's reports of stress and repetitive use of the upper extremities at work, yet they fail to persuasively explain how and why these factors played no role in applicant's injuries to the circulatory system and upper extremities. As explained by the California Supreme Court, industrial factors need only be a contributing cause of injury, however slight. (See South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 299 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489].)
The medical evaluators' opinions on causation lacked sufficient explanation and reasoning to constitute substantial medical evidence, particularly regarding the role of work-related stress and repetitive use in the injuries. The Board found the need for further development of the record to obtain substantial evidence on causation.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ17343281 · 2025-04-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Although applicant and defendant framed the issues of temporary disability indemnity and attorney's fees for trial, the WCJ issued no findings of fact as to these issues. Instead, the WCJ awarded applicant temporary disability indemnity in a manner which determined an issue neither raised nor submitted for decision: whether defendant may take a credit for any reimbursement payments it may have made to EDD.
The WCJ issued an award on temporary disability and attorney's fees without findings of fact on these issues and precluded defendant from pursuing a credit for reimbursements to EDD, which was not raised for trial. The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and returned the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ14808611 · 2022-09-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Here, Dr. Ross repeatedly indicated that applicant's orthopedic symptoms, including the C6 radiculopathy, were caused by the original injury, or were a consequence of that injury. Having reviewed the trial record, including applicant's deposition testimony that her treating doctor told her she had a "pinched nerve" in her neck (see App. Exh. 3, pp. 20 § 21, September 9, 2021, deposition transcript), we see no evidence in the record that contradicts or is otherwise inconsistent with Dr. Ross' opinions regarding the cause of applicant's orthopedic symptoms. Again, Dr. Ross examined applicant, took an accurate history, reviewed the medical record, and explained the basis for his conclusions. Thus, his reports constitute substantial evidence that, in addition to the body parts stipulated to by the parties, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her cervical spine (neck).
The QME Dr. Ross's well-reasoned reports, based on examination, history, and medical record review, constituted substantial evidence that the cervical spine injury was industrially caused and a compensable consequence of the original injury.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ14413931 · 2021-10-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Defendant sent applicant a delay letter on April 23, 2021 stating that her claim was on delay pending, among other items, a "med-legal examination." Defendant's delay letter thus expressly stated that a medical-legal evaluation was necessary in order to make a decision regarding her claim. Applicant waited the requisite time from mailing of defendant's delay letter before requesting a QME panel from the Medical Unit on May 19, 2021. She therefore properly obtained a QME panel in accordance with sections 4060 and 4062.2.
The Appeals Board found that applicant properly obtained the QME panel in accordance with Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2, relying on the delay letter as a valid basis for requesting the panel and rejecting the WCJ's contrary finding. The Board also found no evidence that the specialty chosen (chiropractic) was medically inappropriate, and defendant failed to request a replacement panel specialty.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ3206096 · 2026-03-13 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2II. Next, we address the timeliness of applicant's petition. The Proof of Service for the November 10, 2025 Findings of Fact indicates defective service on applicant by including the wrong state for applicant's Las Vegas address (California ("CA") rather than Nevada ("NV"). Where the service of a decision is defective, the statutory time period for filing a petition for reconsideration does not begin to run until the decision is actually received. (See Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Phillips) (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1, 3 [43
The petition for reconsideration was timely filed within the 30-day period after service of the WCJ's decision, and the Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period after transmission to the Appeals Board, so the petition was properly considered and denied on the merits.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ19093016 · 2024-09-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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 merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18882823 · 2024-05-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3As the moving party, defendant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, it should be relieved from the settlement agreement it entered into with applicant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence"].) Defendant seeks to set aside the Order but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding its allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate defendant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.
The petition was dismissed as premature because no evidence was admitted to support the defendant's claim of mutual mistake regarding the wage rate, and due process requires a hearing and record before setting aside stipulations.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ13433039 · 2023-12-07 · Long Beach 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 prior WCJ decision, returning the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ8668714 · 2023-07-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and 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 vacate our order granting reconsideration, dismiss the petition as one for reconsideration, and deny the petition as one for removal.2
The WCJ's order was interlocutory and not final, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed; removal was denied because petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13396146 · 2023-03-06 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a Petition to Set Aside Stipulation & Award and a Petition for Reconsideration. We 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 below, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration as premature. We will then return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to adjudicate defendant's Petition to Set Aside Stipulation & Award.
The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because there was no evidence in the record regarding defendant's allegations, and the matter was returned to the WCJ for a hearing on the Petition to Set Aside Stipulation & Award.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14410761 · 2022-10-25 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1RECONSIDERATION The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on August 8, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the petition for reconsideration, so the petition was dismissed.
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 WENDEROFF LAW GROUP
THE WENDEROFF LAW GROUP, APC
WENDEROFF LAW
WENDEROFF LAW GROUP, APC
The Wenderoff Law Group
WENDEROFF LAW GROUP
Wenderoff 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 →

How the appealed decisions came out

8 for the defense

3 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Counted over 13 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.

ADJ18031412 · 2026-06-26 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Medland Medical seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 6, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that, while employed as a Machine Operator/Packer, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her bilateral arms, bilateral hands, back, bilateral hips, and bilateral legs. The WCJ further found that the case in chief settled via Compromise and Release with an Order Approving issuing October 14, 2025; that lien claimant did not meet the burden of proof on the injury AOE/COE, such that the lien is disallowed in its entirety. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that lien claimant's lien be disallowed in its entirety.

The lien claimant failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish injury AOE/COE based on the medical record and evidentiary record submitted. The ultimate conclusion of industrial causation was deferred to the Trier of Fact, and the WCJ found no sufficient evidence to support the lien claimant's claim.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11202213 · 2025-05-09 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.5The conclusions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Wood with respect to causation of injury do not constitute substantial medical evidence without further explanation. The medical evaluators do not question applicant's reports of stress and repetitive use of the upper extremities at work, yet they fail to persuasively explain how and why these factors played no role in applicant's injuries to the circulatory system and upper extremities. As explained by the California Supreme Court, industrial factors need only be a contributing cause of injury, however slight. (See South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 299 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489].)

The medical evaluators' opinions on causation lacked sufficient explanation and reasoning to constitute substantial medical evidence, particularly regarding the role of work-related stress and repetitive use in the injuries. The Board found the need for further development of the record to obtain substantial evidence on causation.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ17343281 · 2025-04-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.6Although applicant and defendant framed the issues of temporary disability indemnity and attorney's fees for trial, the WCJ issued no findings of fact as to these issues. Instead, the WCJ awarded applicant temporary disability indemnity in a manner which determined an issue neither raised nor submitted for decision: whether defendant may take a credit for any reimbursement payments it may have made to EDD.

The WCJ issued an award on temporary disability and attorney's fees without findings of fact on these issues and precluded defendant from pursuing a credit for reimbursements to EDD, which was not raised for trial. The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ14808611 · 2022-09-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Here, Dr. Ross repeatedly indicated that applicant's orthopedic symptoms, including the C6 radiculopathy, were caused by the original injury, or were a consequence of that injury. Having reviewed the trial record, including applicant's deposition testimony that her treating doctor told her she had a "pinched nerve" in her neck (see App. Exh. 3, pp. 20 § 21, September 9, 2021, deposition transcript), we see no evidence in the record that contradicts or is otherwise inconsistent with Dr. Ross' opinions regarding the cause of applicant's orthopedic symptoms. Again, Dr. Ross examined applicant, took an accurate history, reviewed the medical record, and explained the basis for his conclusions. Thus, his reports constitute substantial evidence that, in addition to the body parts stipulated to by the parties, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her cervical spine (neck).

The QME Dr. Ross's well-reasoned reports, based on examination, history, and medical record review, constituted substantial evidence that the cervical spine injury was industrially caused and a compensable consequence of the original injury.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ14413931 · 2021-10-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Defendant sent applicant a delay letter on April 23, 2021 stating that her claim was on delay pending, among other items, a "med-legal examination." Defendant's delay letter thus expressly stated that a medical-legal evaluation was necessary in order to make a decision regarding her claim. Applicant waited the requisite time from mailing of defendant's delay letter before requesting a QME panel from the Medical Unit on May 19, 2021. She therefore properly obtained a QME panel in accordance with sections 4060 and 4062.2.

The Appeals Board found that applicant properly obtained the QME panel in accordance with Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2, relying on the delay letter as a valid basis for requesting the panel and rejecting the WCJ's contrary finding. The Board also found no evidence that the specialty chosen (chiropractic) was medically inappropriate, and defendant failed to request a replacement panel specialty.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ3206096 · 2026-03-13 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2II. Next, we address the timeliness of applicant's petition. The Proof of Service for the November 10, 2025 Findings of Fact indicates defective service on applicant by including the wrong state for applicant's Las Vegas address (California ("CA") rather than Nevada ("NV"). Where the service of a decision is defective, the statutory time period for filing a petition for reconsideration does not begin to run until the decision is actually received. (See Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Phillips) (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1, 3 [43

The petition for reconsideration was timely filed within the 30-day period after service of the WCJ's decision, and the Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period after transmission to the Appeals Board, so the petition was properly considered and denied on the merits.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ19093016 · 2024-09-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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 merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18882823 · 2024-05-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3As the moving party, defendant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, it should be relieved from the settlement agreement it entered into with applicant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence"].) Defendant seeks to set aside the Order but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding its allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate defendant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.

The petition was dismissed as premature because no evidence was admitted to support the defendant's claim of mutual mistake regarding the wage rate, and due process requires a hearing and record before setting aside stipulations.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ13433039 · 2023-12-07 · Long Beach 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 prior WCJ decision, returning the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ8668714 · 2023-07-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and 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 vacate our order granting reconsideration, dismiss the petition as one for reconsideration, and deny the petition as one for removal.2

The WCJ's order was interlocutory and not final, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed; removal was denied because petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13396146 · 2023-03-06 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a Petition to Set Aside Stipulation & Award and a Petition for Reconsideration. We 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 below, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration as premature. We will then return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to adjudicate defendant's Petition to Set Aside Stipulation & Award.

The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because there was no evidence in the record regarding defendant's allegations, and the matter was returned to the WCJ for a hearing on the Petition to Set Aside Stipulation & Award.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14410761 · 2022-10-25 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1RECONSIDERATION The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on August 8, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petitioner withdrew the petition for reconsideration, so the petition was dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →