Bakersfield 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.

• ADJ18656111 · 2026-06-26 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on March 3, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that defendant did not prove that decedent's death was proximately caused by intoxication. Defendant asserts that the WCJ erred because the evidence supports the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner ("QME") that intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury.

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that decedent's intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury, due to lack of concrete evidence and reliance on speculative assumptions in the QME report.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ21459493 · 2026-06-25 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ). Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the PWCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant the Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the Order Allowing Fees per Labor Code Section 57101, and return the matter to the PWCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The Appeals Board found procedural defects in the Order Allowing Attorney's Fees, including lack of Notice of Intention and failure to consider evidence of preparation time, warranting rescission and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9826933 · 2026-06-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5II. The WCJ found that applicant was permanent and stationary or maximum medically improved (MMI) on July 12, 2023 (Finding of Fact No. 4). Defendant agrees that applicant was MMI on July 12, 2023, when Dr. Hyman assigned him 75% WPI. (Petition, at p. 3:18-19; 4:1-6.) Then, defendant contends that permanent total disability payments should therefore begin on July 12, 2023. In our en banc decision, Brower v. David Jones Constr. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550, we addressed the timing of permanent disability indemnity payments in relation to payment of temporary disability benefits.

  The Board followed the en banc precedent in Brower, holding that permanent total disability indemnity payments start from the date permanent total disability is first established, not from the date the final level of disability is determined, thus payments start June 9, 2016, not July 12, 2023.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ3719477 · 2026-06-15 · Bakersfield District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in relevant part, that in case ADJ3719477, from March 28, 1986 to May 5, 2005, while employed by defendant as a sheriff's deputy, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his low back and claims to have sustained injury to his neck, bilateral knees, and circulatory system-heart. The WCJ further found Dr. Donald Webb to be the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) who provided services in this case and the Petition to Reopen dated January 20, 2010 was timely filed on January 25, 2010. The WCJ also found good cause to reopen the April 18, 2007 Award and further development of the medical- record to be necessary to determine the nature and extent of the new and further disability. The WCJ ordered parties to coordinate discovery efforts to have applicant reevaluated by the AME, Dr. Donald Webb, to determine the nature and extent of the new and further disability. All other issues were deferred and reserved.

  The WCJ found good cause to reopen based on evidence of new and further disability, including new periods of temporary disability, despite AME Dr. Webb's opinion that permanent impairment had not changed. The WCAB affirmed this finding and ordered reevaluation by a new AME.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12418883 · 2026-05-07 · Bakersfield District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Once an employee has established an industrial psychiatric injury, an employer may seek to have its liability for compensation barred by proving that the injury was substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(h).) The burden of proof rests with the party holding the affirmative of the issue, and thus, defendant holds the burden of proving the good faith personnel action defense.

  The WCAB held that the good faith personnel action defense analysis is premature until the medical evidence sufficiently establishes an industrial injury to psyche.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14684214 · 2026-05-05 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on March 10, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →