Marina del Rey 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.

• ADJ14257977 · 2026-06-09 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

  Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as premature and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside and create a record.

  The petition was dismissed as premature because the WCJ had not yet created a record regarding applicant's understanding of the settlement; the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11087603 · 2026-06-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 12, 2025 Findings of Fact, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her low back and left shoulder while employed as a caregiver, Occupational Group Number 340, on August 16, 2017. The WCJ also found compensable consequences in the form of an intraoperative stroke affecting the head, right upper extremity, gait, right lower extremity and facial weakness. The WCJ deferred the issue of whether applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her brain, throat (dysphasia)1, and psyche. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent total disability of 100%.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board relied on the AME Dr. Lawrence Richman's thorough examination, detailed reports, and deposition testimony, which were supported by substantial medical evidence, to find the applicant permanently and totally disabled. The vocational expert's opinions were found unpersuasive and not substantial evidence to rebut the AME's opinion or the applicant's credible testimony.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16439951 · 2026-05-29 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, the WCJ found industrial injury based on the reporting and testimony of primary treating physician Marc Nehorayan, M.D., who opined that applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment. We note that since applicant's injury resulted from being a victim of or direct exposure to a violent act a finding that defendant does not challenge it need only be proved the actual events of employment were a substantial cause of the injury. (Cal. Labor Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(2).)

  The WCAB affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the psyche based on substantial medical evidence, including Dr. Nehorayan's opinion that the injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment, and rejected defendant's argument about DSM edition used for diagnosis.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12047947 · 2026-05-26 · Marina del Rey District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Petitioner contends in relevant part that the Compromise & Release (C&R) contains an incorrect calculation for a third party credit and seeks to set it aside.

  The WCAB found the Petition for Reconsideration premature and dismissed it to allow the trial level to further consider the alleged incorrect third party credit calculation and create a full record for review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19532643 · 2026-05-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7At trial, when the Applicant was presented with this deposition testimony, she explained that she may have misspoken at the deposition, and that it was more a desire to retire just from CVS, (MOH/SOE page 6, lines 12-14). She stated that she is planning to renew her pharmaceutical license, and that as of the date of trial, she was taking the necessary classes towards that end, (MOH/SOE page 5, lines 9-12). She further testified that a job in the pharmaceutical field was offered to her sometime in April or May of 2024, but due to her shoulder injury, she did not accept it, and that she does not [at this time] feel comfortable returning to the work force, (MOH/SOE page 5, lines 17-25). She is currently looking online for work opportunities, and testified that when she retired from CVS, she told management that she was intending to retire from that company only, (MOH/SOE page 6, lines 1-5). No witnesses from management at CVS provided testimony contradicting the last statement.

  The WCJ found applicant intended to retire only from the employer, not the labor market entirely, supported by credible trial testimony showing willingness to work post-retirement despite injury, and no contrary evidence from defendant.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10642765 · 2026-05-18 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings of Fact that relate to the issue of new and further disability, and substitute a new Order that the issue of whether applicant has sustained new and further disability as alleged in her Petition to Reopen dated April 13, 2021, is deferred.

  The Appeals Board found the evidentiary record insufficient to adjudicate new and further disability and compensable consequence injuries, and thus deferred the issue for further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 9 →