San Bernardino 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.

• ADJ18961005 · 2026-09-17 · San Bernardino District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.47, line 3.) DISCUSSION At trial, defendant raised the sole issue of whether applicant is an independent contractor pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7451 et seq. According to the language of Business and Professions Code section 7451, when a company establishes that the services rendered fall within section 7451, a worker is deemed an independent contractor, notwithstanding any contrary provision of the Labor Code. However, to be clear, in this decision, we do not consider the application of this language in section 7451 in the global context of the mandate in the Constitution and the statutory framework in the Labor Code regarding employment and workplace injuries. Instead, we consider only the specific issue raised by defendant at trial, which is whether the provisions of Business and Professions Code section 7451 et seq. apply to this applicant’s work at Amazon. Since we find that it does not apply, we need not address the larger issue of the application of Business and Professions Code section 7451 et seq. with respect to the Constitution and the Labor Code.

  Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove that Business and Professions Code section 7451 applies to applicant's work as an app-based driver for Amazon, thus the presumption of independent contractor status does not apply.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ2631276 · 2026-09-08 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant has filed a Petition for Removal from the Order Rescinding 3rd Amended Joint Findings & Order issued on June 4, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), alleging that the delay and additional proceedings would cause undue delay and irreparable harm. Thereafter, on July 14, 2026, the WCJ returned this matter to the trial calendar and resubmitted this matter with the parties for decision rendering the petition moot. Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition for Removal. 1

  The petition was dismissed as moot because the WCJ returned the matter to the trial calendar and resubmitted it with the parties for decision rendering the petition moot.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13610807 · 2026-08-20 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ has made unqualified opinions as to the merits of the case. We have received an answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Report) recommending that we dismiss or deny disqualification. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification 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 contained in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny disqualification. Labor Code 1 section 5311 provides that a party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon any one or more of the grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641. (§ 5311; see also Code Civ.

  The WCAB panel found no grounds for disqualification as the WCJ's opinions were not fixed and could be changed upon further evidence and argument, and no bias was demonstrated.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19449355 · 2026-08-18 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on June 16, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20958335 · 2026-08-03 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5It appears that, beyond the statute of limitations issue, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury because there were not contemporaneous records documenting injury. Qualified medical evaluator orthopedist Christopher LeBrun wrote in his October 17, 2025 report, “While it is medically reasonable that the applicant’s current symptomatology in the neck, thoracic spine, bilaterial shoulders and bilateral feet is at least partially attributed to the repetitive nature of his regular and customary occupational demands as a full-time laborer worker for California Steel Industrias, Inc., there were no corroborating medical records submitted regarding the applicant’s complaints during the duration of his employment and no witness statements.” (October 17, 2025 report at p.

  The WCJ found no industrial injury due to lack of contemporaneous medical records and witness statements, but the WCAB found this insufficient and ordered further development including a medical opinion on causation and reconsideration of credibility findings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11055389 · 2026-07-27 · San Bernardino District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5However, providing two separate awards for the exact same disability is not supported by the law and would result in an impermissible double recovery for the applicant. If apportionment assigned by Dr. Hasday for the two injuries is not deemed substantial medical evidence, the appropriate remedy would be to rate the injuries together and issue one award for both injuries. Pursuant to Benson, “[…] there may be limited circumstances when the evaluating physician cannot parcel out, with reasonable medical probability, the approximate percentages to which each distinct industrial injury causally contributed to an employee’s overall permanent disability. In such limited circumstances, when the employer has failed to meet its burden of proof, a combined award of permanent disability may still be justified.” (Benson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 170 Cal. App. 4th 1535, 1536.)

  The Appeals Board found that the record may be incomplete regarding apportionment and that the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Hasday's apportionment opinion was persuasive but could be improved. The Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues, deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 5 →