Pomona 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.

• ADJ20910758 · 2026-06-30 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7In this matter, applicant attempted to amend the date of injury to conform to the testimony provided by applicant which, as all parties seem to agree, directly refuted a period of employment prior to April 20, 2025 as initially plead. It is not clear from the record whether defendant objected to the motion, but the WCJ denied the request. We agree that the request was made at a late point in litigation after both parties had effectively rested and the exhibits had been agreed to and discussed. However, the motion should have been granted and the matter deferred for further discovery and a hearing on the merits.

  The WCJ erred in denying amendment of the pleadings to conform to testimony regarding employment dates; the proper procedure was to develop the record further. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to determine employment during the correct period.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ3354072 · 2026-06-16 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (the applicant 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 the applicant, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12703817 · 2026-06-05 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5III. Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).) Here, for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and the Report, defendant failed to establish any substantial prejudice or irreparable harm resulting from the WCJ's orders regarding discovery. The sole dispute is the proper rate of payment, and cost petitioner is attempting to obtain information from defendant to establish the market rate. The WCJ ordered defendant to produce documentation to establish its market rate for its translation services and to produce a witness for deposition regarding the market rate for the geographic region.

  Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the discovery orders; the orders were relevant and necessary for establishing market rates for interpreter services; defendant's arguments were deemed frivolous and for delay.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14680333 · 2026-05-29 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Based on the record before us, we discern no reason to disturb our prior Decision and will therefore deny defendant's Petition.

  The Board found that the medical opinions on apportionment lacked substantial evidence because they failed to provide adequate medical reasoning connecting the impairment to other factors, thus denying defendant's petition for reconsideration on apportionment.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ11754124 · 2026-05-26 · Pomona District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on February 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant's internal injury complaints are barred by Labor Code1 section 5410 because applicant failed to obtain substantial medical evidence establishing internal injury within five years from his date of injury.

  The WCJ's finding that applicant's internal injury complaints were barred by Labor Code section 5410 was unsupported due to lack of substantial medical evidence; applicant timely filed petition to reopen; record development needed; thus, reconsideration granted and matter remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20106865 · 2026-05-18 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Not only does the letter not explicitly refer to objection, it does not contain any objection whatsoever. Applicant is entitled to retain the control of the QME process and did nothing to lose that control. Thus, defendant waived its right to an objection.

  Defendant's strike letter did not contain any objection to the QME panel specialty, so defendant waived its right to object; applicant was entitled to choose the specialty and chiropractic was appropriate.

  Official decision · page 7 →