Santa Ana 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.

• ADJ19196196 · 2026-06-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Furthermore, violating section 5502 violates the parties' right to due process to be notified of the issues upon which a trial is set. Accordingly, we find that defendant's right to due process has been violated by setting the matter for trial without completing a PTCS on the day of the hearing and without the WCJ reviewing the PTCS with the parties. As to the issue of the adjuster's testimony, upon return the WCJ may accept defendant's petition for removal as a petition to have the adjuster testify remotely. The WCJ may create a record and decide the request. (Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal. Comp. Cases 830, 838, (Appeals Board en banc).) Accordingly, we grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will order this matter to procced to an MSC so that the WCJ may review the PTCS with the parties. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Removal from the Minutes of Hearing issued on April 9, 2026, by the WCJ is GRANTED.

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant's right to due process was violated by setting the matter for trial without completing a pre-trial conference statement on the day of the hearing and without the WCJ reviewing the statement with the parties, thus granting removal was necessary to avoid substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8015380 · 2026-06-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.18For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the July 2, 2019 Findings and Order is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board deferred the issue of application of section 3600.5(b) because the question of Ohio's reciprocity statute effective date requires further factual development at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2026-06-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On March 23, 2026, we issued our Decision determining in relevant part that the filing of a workers' compensation claim on applicant's behalf in 2004 did not impart the knowledge required to establish a date of injury under section 5412 and commence the running of the statute of limitations under section 5405. We observed that per applicant's testimony, he had not initiated the 2004 claim and had never spoken to the filing attorney. We also observed that none of the claim filing documents and supporting documentation were signed by applicant and that evidence established that applicant's only involvement with the claim had been to instruct that it be withdrawn after learning of the filing. (Decision, at pp. 9-10.) We noted the first evidence establishing compensable disability arising out of industrial exposures was the May 4, 2021 medical reporting of orthopedic physician Dr. Einbund. We thus identified May 4, 2021 as the section 5412 date of injury, and concluded that because the instant claim was not filed more than one year from the date of injury, compensation was not barred under section 5405. (Id. at p. 11.)

  The WCAB found that the applicant's date of injury was May 4, 2021, based on medical evidence, and that the 2004 claim filing did not establish knowledge of compensable disability to trigger the statute of limitations under section 5405.

• ADJ13797705 · 2026-06-09 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Applicant sought reconsideration of the May 26, 2022 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim because he was not hired in California, did not regularly work here, and because California has no legitimate interest in his cumulative injury claim. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because he was in fact hired in California and/or regularly employed here, thereby establishing subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivisions (a). 2 We received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration ("Report"), recommending that the Petition be denied. Subsequent to the grant of reconsideration, the Court of Appeal issued Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] ("Gandy"), a decision interpreting section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), and what constitutes "hire" in California for purposes of California workers' compensation proceedings more generally. Specifically, Gandy provided the following reasoning for rejecting the Appeals Board's interpretation of those subdivisions:

  The WCJ found no jurisdiction because applicant was not hired or regularly employed in California, but reconsideration was granted to consider the impact of the Court of Appeal decision Gandy (2025) which interprets 'hire' under section 3600.5 and favors a liberal construction to find California jurisdiction when a California-based team is involved.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10857121 · 2026-06-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5argument. Accordingly, it is our decision after remand to annul the 2024 Decision and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion in the applicant, supra, 111 Cal.App.5th 568, including but not limited to an evidentiary hearing on the factual issue of the applicant's "date of injury" pursuant to section 5412, so that the workers' compensation administrative law judge may determine as a matter of law whether mandatory arbitration is triggered in this case pursuant to section 5275, subdivision (a)(1), for any "date of injury" on or after January 1, 1990.

  The Court of Appeal found that the WCAB erred in its prior decision by not properly determining the date of injury under section 5412, which is a factual prerequisite for mandatory arbitration under section 5275 subdivision (a)(1).

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ19384154 · 2026-06-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

  The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration as timely filed within 60 days of case transmission and deferred final decision pending further merits review.

  Official decision · page 2 →