Salinas 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.

• ADJ8492544 · 2026-09-29 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Applicant claimed injury to her cervical spine, face consisting of the trigeminal nerve, headaches, sleep loss, hypertension, and diabetes while employed as a management analyst by defendant County of Monterey on April 30, 2008. Defendant admits injury to the cervical spine, face consisting of the trigeminal nerve, and headaches but disputes injury in the form of sleep loss and diabetes. The parties have selected Charles Martin, D.C., as the chiropractic Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Massoud Mahmoudi, D.O., Ph.D., as the QME in internal medicine, and A. K. Bhattacharyya, M.D., as the QME in neurology. On December 9, 2021, the parties proceeded to trial and framed for decision, in relevant part, the disputed body parts/systems of sleep loss, hypertension and diabetes. (Minutes of Hearing, dated December 9, 2021, at p. 3:3.) The parties also placed in issue permanent disability and “the applicability of the Combined Value Chart versus Additive Method for impairment.” (Id. at p. 3:6.) Neither party offered witness testimony, and the WCJ ordered the matter submitted for decision as of December 17, 2021. On February 2, 2022, the WCJ issued her F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant sustained her burden of establishing industrial injury in the form of hypertension, but not in the form of diabetes or sleep loss. (Finding of Fact No.

  The WCJ found and the WCAB affirmed that the Combined Values Chart (CVC) was appropriately applied to combine impairment ratings, as the evidence did not support adding impairments due to lack of substantial medical evidence for diabetes and sleep loss as industrial injuries.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13972880 · 2026-09-28 · Salinas District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Based upon the foregoing trial testimony, we believe that applicant did in fact have custodial duties during her employment with defendant. As outlined above, applicant had oversight of outpatient services and the inpatient mental health unit and was responsible for “conflict resolution” between patients and providers. She was also responsible for checking inmates in and out, medically restraining them if necessary, supervising porters (i.e. inmate workers), and providing corrective action. She noted that the position of supervising registered nurse II is a “safety position” as she was required to work in close and frequent contact with inmates with potential risk to herself and others. Lastly, she confirmed, as indicated by Dr.

  The WCAB found that applicant did have custodial duties as a supervising registered nurse II and III, supported by applicant's trial and deposition testimony and Dr. Bellinger's reports, thus qualifying for the heart trouble presumption under section 3212.2.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ7814539 · 2026-09-25 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration to allow us time to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the Joint Findings & Award (F&A) issued on April 26, 2022, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found in pertinent part that, while employed as a broccoli cutter for defendant D’Arrigo Bros.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's prior decision lacked substantial medical evidence on cumulative injury periods, date of injury, and apportionment, requiring further evidentiary development and findings. Therefore, the Board rescinded the prior Findings and Award and deferred all other issues for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11672907 · 2026-09-24 · Salinas District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12her back, kneeling, and excessive twisting. (Id. at p. 13:10-20.) When questioned about whether applicant would be off task a certain percentage of the day, he ultimately deferred to a psyche evaluator but estimated that applicant would have trouble “eight hours a day, five days a week.” (Id. at pp. 13:21-14:6.) Given this additional information, it was reasonable for applicant to believe that expert reporting was necessary to determine whether the said restrictions affected her vocational prospects. Accordingly, we deny defendant’s Petition. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of our August 6, 2026 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, is DENIED.

  The WCAB found that the vocational expert report was reasonably and necessarily incurred despite not affecting the permanent disability rating, thus defendant is liable for the fees.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ13613836 · 2026-08-18 · Salinas District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7(Rodarte) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 998 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 579].) Moreover, based on our review of the evidentiary record, including the PQME reports of Dr. Lockwood, we observe that Dr. Lockwood’s opinions are grounded not only in the reported history of the injury, but also comprehensive physical examinations of applicant, and thorough review of extensive medical records, numbering more than 2,500 pages. Ultimately, even after review of records pertaining to applicant’s prior injuries with Earthbound Farms, Dr. Lockwood continued to find injury AOE/COE. Defendant contends that Dr. Lockwood relied primarily upon applicant’s inaccurate depiction of her job duties, but in his March 19, 2022 report, Dr. Lockwood noted review of applicant’s actual job description. (Exhibit A1, p. 2.) Thus, despite being given the opportunity to reverse his opinions, he continually opted to find injury. Ultimately, in reviewing Dr. Lockwood’s reports, we find his opinions to be well-reasoned and not based upon surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. We thus conclude that Dr. Lockwood’s opinions constitute substantial medical evidence on the issue of injury AOE/COE to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, and bilateral wrists. We also find, for the

  The WCAB found Dr. Lockwood’s opinions to be well-reasoned, based on comprehensive physical exams and extensive medical records review, constituting substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE. Applicant’s claim was found compensable for the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, and bilateral wrists.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15370512 · 2026-08-07 · Salinas District OfficeOther disputed issuedeferred

  Determinative passage · p.73. The issue of whether applicant met the 5% or 35% SIBTF eligibility thresholds is deferred.

  The Board found that the issue of whether the applicant met the 5% or 35% eligibility thresholds under Labor Code section 4751 was not sufficiently developed in the record and deferred the issue for further development at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 7 →