Oakland 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.

• ADJ12941269 · 2026-10-09 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11(1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].) Lay opinion might find it reasonable that the restrictions to pushing, pulling, and carrying with both hands are a result of applicant’s surgical history of bilateral carpal tunnel and ulnar releases in 1994. (Exhibit 1, at p. 2.) Likewise, lay opinion might find it reasonable that the remaining postural limitations are from applicant’s bilateral knee injury and not the result of applicant’s history of asthma and hypertension. (Ibid.) Such lay opinion, however, is not substantial where “where the truth is occult and can be found only by resorting to the sciences.” (Peter Kiewit Sons, supra, at p. 838.) An expert medical opinion is required to explain both the work restrictions and their specific source. Therefore, it is clear the work restrictions in the FCE are not substantial evidence.

  The WCAB found the record requires further development on work restrictions and AMA Guides impairment before determining permanent total disability and apportionment; thus, the Amended Findings and Award were rescinded and the case remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ7155088 · 2026-10-05 · Oakland District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded

  Determinative passage · p.13injurious or merely exacerbated the pre-2006 pathology, any determination of the number of cumulative trauma periods and the identity of the liable carrier under section 5500.5(a) would rest on surmise rather than substantial evidence. On return, we recommend that the WCJ develop the record on the issues identified above. This may include: (1) supplemental reports or deposition testimony from the AMEs regarding separate cumulative trauma periods and the section 5412 knowledge component; (2) evidence clarifying applicant’s post-December 11, 2006 duties and their causal link to any disability; and (3) any other evidence the WCJ deems necessary. Upon the record’s completion, the WCJ shall issue a new decision consistent with the authorities discussed herein. With respect to applicant’s claim for increased permanent disability pursuant to section 4658(d), we make no findings at this time. However, since we are returning the matter for further development of the record, if further evidence is needed to determine this issue, the parties will now have the opportunity to submit it. Accordingly, we rescind the F&A and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ and AMEs failed to adequately determine whether there were one or two cumulative trauma periods and the exact date of injury, requiring further development of the record to clarify these issues.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ15991395 · 2026-10-01 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration in order to allow us time to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We now issue our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant sought reconsideration of the January 27, 2026 Findings, Award and Orders (F, A & O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his lumbar spine and sacroiliac (SI) joint, which resulted in 8% permanent disability and the need for further medical treatment.

  The WCJ found 8% permanent disability and deferred the SJDB voucher issue; the WCAB rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on the settlement proposal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10401484 · 2026-09-28 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 (Appeals Board en banc) (Vigil), the Appeals Board held that an injured employee can rebut the CVC in the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule and add impairments where they can establish the impact of each impairment on the activities of daily living (ADLs). In addition, they must show either (a) there is no overlap between the effects on ADLs between the body parts rated, or (b) there is overlap but the overlap increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs. We explained that medical expertise is required: In determining whether the application of the CVC table has been rebutted in a case, an applicant must present evidence explaining what impact applicant’s impairments have had upon their ADLs. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that the impact upon the ADLs overlaps, without more, an applicant has not rebutted the CVC table. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that there is effectively an absence of overlap, the CVC table is rebutted, and it need not be used.

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence from AME Dr. Lavorgna supporting addition of disabilities rather than using the combined values chart, based on the impact on activities of daily living and the need for a scooter, thus increasing the permanent disability rating to 74%.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11763808 · 2026-09-28 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 16, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed on April 20, 2015 as a deli clerk, occupational group number 322 by “Safeway” 1 sustained injury arising out of and in the course of 0F

  The WCJ found applicant sustained injury arising out of employment causing 100% permanent disability and requiring further medical treatment. The Board affirmed the 100% PD finding and amended the award to provide for future medical care generally, based on medical evidence and legal standards for causation and treatment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8739026 · 2026-09-23 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order of continuance issued on June 18, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Thereafter on September 15, 2026, applicant filed a petition to withdraw the petition for removal as the parties had entered into a Compromise and Release, which was approved. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for removal.

  The petition for removal was withdrawn after the parties entered into a Compromise and Release, leading to dismissal of the petition.

  Official decision · page 1 →