Anaheim 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.

• ADJ19018827 · 2026-06-30 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) be denied for being untimely but is premature or not ripe as to whether there is "good cause" to vacate or set aside the Order. The WCJ recommends the Petition be treated as a "Petition to Vacate" or "Petition to Set Aside" and the matter be returned to the WCJ to hold hearings for a clear record to be created on whether there is "good cause" to vacate or set aside the Order or "good cause" to reinstate the Application. We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the Petition as one seeking reconsideration. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the WCJ may treat the Petition as one to set aside the Order.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was not acted upon within the required timeframe and the matter was recommended to be treated as a petition to set aside the order with a hearing to create a record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11235520 · 2026-06-22 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Defendant relies on a UR request for additional information dated June 6, 2022, to support application of the extended timeframe under section 4610(j)(2). However, the determinative question is not merely the date appearing on the document, but whether the request was actually and immediately communicated to the treating physician and the employee within the statutory timeframe.

  The record did not establish whether defendant timely and properly communicated the June 6, 2022 request for additional information, creating an evidentiary gap preventing determination of timeliness of the June 10, 2022 UR denial. The case was remanded for further evidentiary development to resolve this issue.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10898792 · 2026-06-16 · Anaheim District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision to allow the WCJ to review the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the case is pending on reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10298755 · 2026-06-01 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on April 1, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, May 31, 2026. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, June 1, 2026. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)1. This decision is issued by or on Monday, June 1, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).

  The Appeals Board found the Petition for Reconsideration was timely filed and granted it to allow further review of the merits and the entire record, deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13039423 · 2026-06-01 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13vehicle's air-conditioning in December 2020 and January 2021. (See MOH/SOE (12-17-2025) supra at 5:11-14; 8:10-11; 8:25-9:3.) The timeline of events as relayed by the applicant is inconsistent. Based on the totality of the evidence before the Court, and without any evidence offered in support of applicant's suspicion, it is found that applicant did not sustain his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of hi[s] employment with Northup Grumman. (Opinion on Decision, March 5, 2026, at pp. 1-10, EAMS Doc ID numbers omitted.) Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration.

  Applicant failed to prove industrial causation by a preponderance of the evidence; the evidence was speculative and inconsistent.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ20567579 · 2026-05-22 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2I. We first address the timeliness of defendant's petition. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v.

  The Appeals Board found the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration timely filed despite initial errors and granted reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record.

  Official decision · page 2 →