Long Beach district office

Released decisions heard here

Newest released decisions whose case card names this venue. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF. Litigated tail — not a win rate for this office.

• ADJ10035604 · 2026-10-12 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order taking the matter off calendar issued on July 16, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant contends that the matter should not have been taken off calendar, citing Labor Code 1 section 5502 and WCAB Rule 10759 (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 10759). Applicant further 0F

  The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed. However, the petition for removal was granted because the applicant demonstrated substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10912062 · 2026-10-05 · Long Beach District OfficeSJDB voucherapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, with respect to the April 13, 2017 injury (ADJ10912062), according to the July 29, 2019 report of Julie Goalwin, Ph.D., applicant was found to be permanent and stationary with a GAF score of 63 and a whole person impairment (WPI) of 11. (Applicant’s Exhibit 2, report of Dr. Goalwin, signed on July 29, 2019 with an examination date of July 17, 2019, p. 22.) An earlier report by Michelle Conover, Ph.D., dated July 1, 2019 found applicant permanent and stationary but without any disability, or a disability that had largely been resolved. (Defendant Exhibit A, report of Dr. Conover dated July 1, 2019, pp. 59, 61.) Dr. Conover’s report would not have entitled applicant to the SJDB voucher as she did not find applicant had suffered any permanent disability. But because the Joint Findings of Fact found applicant to be permanent and stationary on the later date of July 17, 2019 (this is the date of Dr. Goalwin’s examination of application, not the date Dr. Goalwin signed her report), we accept Dr.

  Applicant was found permanent and stationary with permanent partial disability for the April 13, 2017 injury and returned to the same job more than 60 days after MMI, so employer is not absolved from SJDB voucher liability for that injury. For the October 26, 2021 injury, applicant returned to work before MMI and satisfied timing requirements, so no voucher is owed.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16870990 · 2026-08-25 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that it should not have to procced to a trial on the issue of sanctions because it has not engaged in sanctionable conduct. 1 0F

  The Appeals Board denied removal because the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15580972 · 2026-08-11 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one that either “determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case” (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a “threshold” issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Id. at p.

  The WCJ's order vacating the dismissal was interlocutory and not final, so reconsideration was improper; removal was granted due to significant prejudice and to consolidate venue and assignment to the same WCJ.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14513544 · 2026-08-04 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Thus, as a matter of due process, a notice of intention must clearly state the reason(s) for its issuance and identify a means to respond. Here, the NIT issued by the WCJ failed to inform the parties that they could make a showing of good cause prior to the Order issuing and it failed to set forth the period of time in which the parties had to act. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10421; 10832(c).) Arguably, if the WCJ’s intention was to allow parties to object on the record at a hearing, rescheduling the hearing scheduled for April 25, 2023, without reissuing the NIT, did not give proper notice and meant that Zurich was denied the opportunity to be heard. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the WCJ intended to go forward with a hearing on the rescheduled date of May 2, 2023, as there were no Minutes of Hearing created pursuant to WCAB Rule 10787. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787). Because Zenith was not afforded adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, the corresponding Order issued thereafter is invalid. Further, even if the NIT and the Order had been properly issued and served, we are unable to provide meaningful review due to the lack of a record.

  The WCJ's Notice of Intention to Sanction failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, violating due process, and no evidentiary record was created to support the Order of Sanctions, leading to rescission of the Order.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ19588119 · 2026-08-03 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ is biased and prejudiced. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny disqualification. Labor Code 1 section 5311 provides that a party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon any one or more of the grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641. (§ 5311; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 641.) Among the grounds for disqualification under section 641 are that the WCJ has “formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action” (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f)) or that the WCJ has demonstrated “[t]he existence of a state of mind … evincing enmity against or bias toward either party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)). Under WCAB Rule 10960, proceedings to disqualify a WCJ “shall be initiated by the filing of a petition for disqualification supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury

  The WCJ's Report and analysis found no grounds for disqualification based on bias or prejudice, and the petition was untimely and unsupported by specific facts.

  Official decision · page 1 →