Sacramento 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.

• ADJ19474979 · 2026-10-16 · Sacramento District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 15, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in part that applicant did not meet her burden to prove that her injury was a compensable psychiatric industrially related injury. 1 0F

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant did not meet the burden to prove her psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by employment events, relying on the substantial medical evidence of AME Dr. Piciucco who opined only 40% industrial causation, below the required 51%. Applicant's contrary medical evidence was not substantial. The good faith personnel action defense was not reached due to lack of predominant causation.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ21248340 · 2026-10-16 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 21, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant as a groundsman on June 25, 2025, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his lower back and right leg. The WCJ deferred and reserved all other issues. Defendant, in essence, contends that the evidence does not support applicant’s credibility and the finding of injury AOE/COE. Defendant further contends it has subsequently received sub rosa video evidence that further places applicant’s credibility in question. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations of defendant’s Petition and the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, as well as the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny reconsideration.

  The WCJ and WCAB found applicant credible based on consistent testimony and medical evidence from QME Dr. Lum, supported by objective findings and corroborating medical records, establishing injury AOE/COE to lower back and right leg on June 25, 2025.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3117080 · 2026-09-28 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, the applicant’s QME panel request failed to comply with the statutory requirements described above. It is unclear from the record how the panel was obtained. Specifically, although validity of QME panel number 3686064 was at issue for trial, there is no evidence that either party objected to a medical determination by a treating physician within 30 days, or any agreed upon time extension, from the receipt of any treating physician report in compliance with section 4062(a). (Lab. Code, § 4062(a).) Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant provided a form to applicant to request a panel QME within 10 days per section 4062.1(b). (Lab. Code, § 4062.1(b).) The WCJ found that QME panel number 3686064 was valid based on the August 5, 2025, Stipulation and Order that states: THE QME APPOINTMENT WITH DR. WIESELTIER SET FOR 8/14/25 WILL BE CANCELLED PENDING DETERMINATION BY THE WCAB ON WHETHER THE QME PANEL IS APPROPRIATE. IF THE PANEL IS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE A QME APPOINTMENT WILL BE RESCHEDULED AS APPROPRIATE. (All capitals in original.)

  The QME panel was found invalid because the statutory requirements for obtaining the panel were not met, including lack of timely objection and failure to provide the panel request form to the applicant.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11687715 · 2026-09-24 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The Court held that the uncontroverted evidence established exposure to smoke, the doctor stated that it was probable that the smoke inhaled contained carcinogens and it was reason that prolonged exposure could lead to lung cancer, need only establish that it was reasonably probable and was not required to produce exact type/amount of exposure, and that employment need only be a contributing cause. In the present matter, the issue of AOE/COE was addressed in the Findings of Fact. Applicant alleged that the decedent’s lung cancer and resulting death were caused by diesel exhaust exposure at work. The parties used Stuart Lonky, MD as the panel qualified medical evaluator. QME Lonky provided five reports and sat for four depositions. He reviewed extensive medical records, deposition transcripts from various employees at the City of Sacramento, including the Kristal the applicant, the injured worker’s spouse, and multiple medical articles on the relationship between diesel fumes and lung cancer. Throughout the reporting and deposition testimony, QME Lonky opined that there was industrial causation. QME Lonky’s

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that the expert opinion of PQME Dr. Lonky constituted substantial medical evidence that the decedent's lung cancer and death were industrially caused by diesel exhaust exposure as a co-carcinogen, even with the decedent's smoking history, meeting the burden of proof by reasonable probability.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8497367 · 2026-09-24 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks removal, or in the alternative reconsideration, of the July 2, 2026 Minutes of Hearing order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) excused the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) from future hearings, while the case against applicant’s employer proceeds first. Applicant contends that by taking the SIBTF case off calendar until a determination was made on the claim against the employer results in extreme prejudice and irreparable harm because applicant will now be subject to the new SIBTF rules signed into law on July 13, 2026, as she will not be eligible for the safe harbor provisions found in the new Labor Code, section 4758. 1 We did not receive an answer from SIBTF.

  The petition was denied because the SIBTF issues were taken off calendar as interlocutory, not final, and the declaration of readiness did not indicate the SIBTF claim was ready for trial under the new Labor Code section 4758 safe harbor provisions.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18022996 · 2026-08-28 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5aggrieved by the WCJ’s decision. Since defendant here is not “aggrieved directly or indirectly” by the FO&A, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the FO&A issued by the WCJ on June 9, 2026 is DISMISSED.

  Defendant was not aggrieved by the WCJ's decision and thus lacked standing to seek reconsideration; the petition was dismissed as untimely and without merit.

  Official decision · page 5 →