Los Angeles 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.

• ADJ21919813 · 2026-10-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5In this matter, the only practical difference in filing two applications appears to be that applicant does not need to show “good cause” to obtain a QME panel in a second specialty. We find that the WCJ improperly found that these cases are duplicative without considering the evidence or conducting the analysis discussed in Ortiz, supra. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ’s decision, and enter a new decision deferring the issues of whether these applications alleged duplicative injuries or whether the applicant sustained one or multiple (or any) cumulative injuries. We find that defendant is not entitled to stay of the QME process. We note that the WCJ states that applicant’s objection to the WCJ’s findings were not timely because the WCJ appeared to state at the May 18, 2026 trial that he was finding the cases duplicative, and this statement was noted in the Minutes. However, the Minutes show the case as “submitted” and these findings were not final until an actual decision was issued and served as required by Labor Code section 5313. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order of July 10, 2026 is GRANTED.

  The WCJ's dismissal of ADJ21919813 as duplicative was improper due to lack of medical evidence and failure to apply required legal analysis; the WCAB deferred the issue pending further medical development and rescinded the dismissal.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11800026 · 2026-09-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, it appears from our preliminary review that the record may not be complete regarding several issues, including finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the appropriate body parts and/or conditions including psychiatric injury, temporary disability, permanent disability and the applicability of section 4660.1(c), and apportionment. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision.

  The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record due to incomplete record and statutory time constraints.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ12141593 · 2026-09-11 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11Minkstein’s reporting as to the issue of preexisting permanent disability does not constitute substantial medical evidence. (See Escobedo, supra.) Because the record suggests that applicant had a labor-disabling condition prior to her subsequent injury but is unclear as to whether and to what extent she had preexisting permanent disability of the bilateral hands/wrists and right shoulder, we conclude that the WCJ’s conclusion that applicant does not have preexisting permanent disability was in error. Accordingly, we will rescind the F&O.

  The WCJ erroneously concluded no preexisting permanent disability due to confusion of issues and lack of substantial evidence. The Appeals Board found the record unclear and deferred the issue for further development.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ20154934 · 2026-09-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ was considering sanctions due to applicant’s failure to attend depositions and due to applicant’s counsel’s filing a petition for removal, which appeared frivolous. Since filing the Petition for Disqualification, applicant has substituted new counsel. 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, however we will treat the Petition as seeking removal of the January 21, 2026 Order to Show Cause. We will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the January 21, 2026 Order to Show Cause.

  The WCJ's Report and the Appeals Board's review found no grounds for disqualification under the specified legal standards; removal was granted due to procedural impropriety in the Order to Show Cause.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12006252 · 2026-09-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Turning now to the merits of the Petition, as the Appeals Board previously explained in their February 9, 2026 Opinion, there are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a “final” decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1), former 10507(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600, former 10508.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed (i.e., received) by the Appeals Board within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10940(a), former 10845(a); 10615(a), former 10392(a).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to act upon or consider an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal. Comp. Cases 650, 656]; Rymer v.

  The petition for reconsideration was filed 147 days after the prior decision was served, exceeding the 25-day limit for filing, making it untimely and depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to hear it.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ1680248 · 2026-08-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeContribution / subrogationmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1324. The Arbitrator found, based on the medical report of the Agreed Medical Evaluator, the value of future medical treatment, the MSA and approval by CMS and the fact the AME found applicant's rheumatoid arthritis to various body parts was aggravated by his employment at California Pizza Kitchen and applicant's fibromyalgia was aggravated by his employment at California Pizza Kitchen, the Arbitrator finds the amount of the settlement is reasonable. 25. The Arbitrator found that American Home Assurance Company did not fail to file a timely Petition for Contribution against Hartford because Hartford had no liability for the second different continuous trauma injury. 26. The Arbitrator, based on the findings above, found that Zurich American Insurance Company is responsible for 29% of the amount of the Compromise and Release Agreement and 29% of the Stipulated Award of temporary disability. 27. The Arbitrator found that Zurich American Insurance Company is entitled to a credit for the sums they paid to the applicant in an amount to be adjusted between the parties with the Arbitrator retaining jurisdiction in case of a dispute. That credit is limited by the fact they are responsible for 29% of that amount paid and, therefore, the credit is 71% of the amount that they paid. 28.

  Zurich American Insurance Company was found responsible for 29% of the Compromise and Release Agreement and the Stipulated Award of temporary disability based on insurance coverage periods and injury periods.

  Official decision · page 13 →