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.

• ADJ21943588 · 2026-09-01 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4section 5402(b), which states, “If liability is not rejected within 90 days after the date the claim form is filed under Section 5401, the injury shall be presumed compensable under this division. The presumption of this subdivision is rebuttable only by evidence discovered subsequent to the 90-day period.” Preliminarily, we note that applicant seeks relief from the Board by petitioning for reconsideration and in the alternative for removal. Pursuant to section 5900, the Board only has jurisdiction to grant reconsideration from a “final order, decision, or award.” In Maranian v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650], it was held that a ruling regarding the applicability of the section 5402(b) presumption is “final” for purposes of section 5900, and thus properly raised by way of a petition for reconsideration. We therefore consider the merits of applicant’s contentions as a petition for reconsideration. Turning to the merits, we do not find the fact that two numbers were transposed in an apparent typographical error to invalidate the denial. We note that Administrative Rule 9812 does not require the date of injury to be listed in a Notice of Denial. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9812, subd.

  The WCJ correctly determined that the applicant was not entitled to the presumption because the claim was timely denied within the statutory period despite a typographical error in the denial notice.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9182040 · 2026-08-24 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6billing pursuant to section 4622(c). (Cal Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10786(a).) In the event that the defendant does not timely request a hearing, the medical-legal provider may thereafter do so. (Id., subd. (b).) WCAB Rule 10786 provides specific conditions under which a defendant’s objection to the billing may be waived, and under what circumstances a provider’s bill will be deemed fully satisfied. (Id., subd. (e), (f), (g), & (h).) Rule 10786 does not require the filing of a lien as a precondition to seeking reimbursement of medical-legal expenses. Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, and substitute new Findings of Fact that WCAB Rule 10545 is not applicable to the current dispute and that Supreme Copy may pursue reimbursement of its claimed charges using the procedures described in WCAB Rule 10786. We will then return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We express no opinion as to the merits of Supreme Copy’s claim for reimbursement. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that reconsideration of the decision of May 27, 2026 is GRANTED.

  The WCAB found that WCAB Rule 10545 does not apply to Supreme Copy's medical-legal copy service charges and that Supreme Copy may pursue reimbursement via lien filing or dispute resolution under WCAB Rule 10786, thus granting reconsideration and rescinding the prior Findings and Order.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ4486822 · 2026-08-05 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on March 4, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant contends that the matter is ready to proceed to trial and that the WCJ failed to make a proper record in ordering the matter off calendar. We have received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, 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 of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. 1 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(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

  The WCAB panel found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus removal was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9853688 · 2026-07-24 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal of Judge’s Findings and Order or in the Alternative Petition for Reconsideration 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. I. Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code 1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition 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 →
• ADJ19103568 · 2026-07-21 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) June 20, 2025 Order Denying Petition for Reassignment (Order), denying applicant’s request for automatic reassignment to another WCJ. Applicant contends if automatic reassignment is not granted she will be significantly prejudiced and will suffer irreparable harm, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. We did not receive an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the Report of the 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. 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,

  The WCAB panel found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant if removal was denied and determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition for removal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19112130 · 2026-07-21 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, Ace American Insurance Company, has filed a petition for removal from the “Order of Joinder of Party Defendant” issued on April 2, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which joined Ace American in these proceedings. Defendant contends that it is not liable for applicant’s cumulative injury and thus its joinder was not proper. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

  The Appeals Board denied removal because removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the petitioner did not demonstrate. The Board also noted that no record exists establishing the facts alleged by the defendant, and such issues must be decided after trial on the merits.

  Official decision · page 1 →