Fresno 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.

• ADJ16903801 · 2026-10-16 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Further, in Hinojosa, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the employee passengers were equally entitled to the required use exception outlined in Smith because all of the workers bear the burden and expense of providing the necessary vehicle for employment. (Hinojosa, supra, 8 Cal.3d at 162.) As a result, the commute differs from routine commute in that the manner in which the job was structured was dependent on use of vehicle to transport employees, as well as the essential trailer, throughout the workday. Because the job impliedly required use of a vehicle, the accident did arise out of and in the course of employment and is therefore compensable. Accordingly, we deny the Petitions for Reconsideration in Case Numbers ADJ16903801, ADJ16689751, ADJ16903295, ADJ16903722, ADJ16903753, ADJ16604010, ADJ16903824 and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration in ADJ17493829.

  The evidence showed that the nature of the work required employees to furnish their own transportation during the workday due to shifting work locations, which fits the required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule, making the injury compensable.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ18291836 · 2026-10-12 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6First, in workers’ compensation proceedings, when a WCJ’s credibility determinations are based on substantial evidence, they are “entitled to great weight because of the [WCJ’s] ‘opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and weigh their statements in connection with their manner on the stand...’ [Citation.]” (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; also see Meiner v. Ford Motor Co. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 127, 140-141.) However, “the Appeals Board is entitled to reject the [WCJ’s] findings on credibility matters if substantial evidence supports contrary findings...” (Garza, supra, 3 Cal.3d at 318-319.) In this case, it appears that the WCJ’s negative assessment of applicant’s credibility may need to be rescinded as it does not appear to be based on substantial evidence, and there is substantial evidence to support a contrary finding.

  The WCJ's negative credibility finding was challenged as unsupported by substantial evidence; applicant's testimony was unrebutted and unimpeached; the Appeals Board found substantial evidence to support a contrary finding and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10412642 · 2026-10-06 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8In declining to permit Dr. Bonin’s report or Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report to be sent to the QME, the WCJ explained in the Report as follows: Bonin’s report was not a neutral factual record. It was a retained biomechanical opinion that directly critiqued QME Dr. Hill’s causation analysis and extended into medical causation. (Defendant’s Exhibits A and B.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found that Dr. Bonin's biomechanical report and Dr. Chauhan's supplemental report were not substantial medical evidence and should not be sent to the QME for review and comment because they were either nonmedical information or speculative and derivative medical opinions.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ8558686 · 2026-09-25 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Opinski testified that he was acting as a general contractor for GOC when he “paid applicant by checks drawn on the OPD account[] and funded by GOC” and that this testimony was uncontroverted by evidence that OPD had “dealings with applicant.” (Petition, p. 9:6-12.) When a WCJ's findings are supported by solid, credible evidence, they are to be accorded great weight by the Appeals Board and rejected only on the basis of contrary evidence of considerable substantiality. (Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ22241553 · 2026-09-25 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of the petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ21245209 · 2026-08-14 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The WCJ found that the QME process was not correctly initiated apparently because the QME process is triggered by an objection to a “primary treating physician” and that neither Nurse Uichanco, nor Dr. Roach was a “primary treating physician.” However, Labor Code section 3209.10(a) plainly states:

  The WCAB found that Nurse Uichanco was acting under Dr. Roach's supervision, making Dr. Roach the primary treating physician under Labor Code section 3209.10, and that the QME process was properly initiated. The WCAB granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's removal of Dr. Bolling as QME, allowing Dr. Bolling to remain as QME.

  Official decision · page 4 →