California WCABLaw firm

Ochoa & Calderon, APC

Ochoa & Calderon, APC is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes are AOE/COE (2). They were heard most often at Riverside, then Pomona. The firm it meets most often is Employer Defense Group (1).

Decisions: 7
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 1
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 6 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.

AOE/COE2

Who they face

2 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 6
Pomona 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 defense
1 for the applicant
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.

ADJ16382526 · 2025-08-11 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, acting in pro per,1 seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 5, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant worked for more than six (6) months, but there is no industrial injury to the psyche as the applicant failed to carry their burden of proof. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.
The WCJ found no compensable psychiatric injury because the termination was a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. The applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12756033 · 2022-01-31 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Based on the evidence and applicant's credible testimony, applicant meets his burden of proof according to Labor Code sections 3202 and 3202.5. The court finds applicant has a compensable injury to his lumbar spine, left leg and left hip.
The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight, and the evidence including applicant's credible testimony and documentation supported compensability despite defendant's surveillance video argument.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ17473343 · 2025-02-20 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on removal, the parties entered into a Compromise & Release. Therefore, the Petition for Removal in response to the decision issued on July 10, 2024 is moot, and it will be dismissed.
The parties entered into a Compromise & Release while the Petition for Removal was pending, rendering the petition moot.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13853047 · 2024-07-09 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal (Petition) 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 deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The petition was denied because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14514349 · 2024-03-18 · Pomona 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 if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14746391 · 2023-09-01 · Riverside 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 found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12200977 · 2022-10-17 · Riverside 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
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.

OCHOA & CALDERON
OCHOA & CALDERON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, APC
LAW OFFICES OF OCHOA & CALDERON
Ochoa & Calderon, APC
OCHOA & CALDERON, APC
Ochoa & Calderon

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

4 for the defense

1 for the applicant

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.

ADJ16382526 · 2025-08-11 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, acting in pro per,1 seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 5, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant worked for more than six (6) months, but there is no industrial injury to the psyche as the applicant failed to carry their burden of proof. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.

The WCJ found no compensable psychiatric injury because the termination was a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. The applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12756033 · 2022-01-31 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Based on the evidence and applicant's credible testimony, applicant meets his burden of proof according to Labor Code sections 3202 and 3202.5. The court finds applicant has a compensable injury to his lumbar spine, left leg and left hip.

The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight, and the evidence including applicant's credible testimony and documentation supported compensability despite defendant's surveillance video argument.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ17473343 · 2025-02-20 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on removal, the parties entered into a Compromise & Release. Therefore, the Petition for Removal in response to the decision issued on July 10, 2024 is moot, and it will be dismissed.

The parties entered into a Compromise & Release while the Petition for Removal was pending, rendering the petition moot.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13853047 · 2024-07-09 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal (Petition) 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 deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The petition was denied because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14514349 · 2024-03-18 · Pomona 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 if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14746391 · 2023-09-01 · Riverside 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 found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12200977 · 2022-10-17 · Riverside 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →