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.

• ADJ3929187 · 2026-06-30 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the December 16, 2021 Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to head, neck, spine, back, shoulders, hips, upper extremities, lower extremities, hearing loss, chest, gastritis, dyspepsia, internal systems, headaches, and post-traumatic head syndrome, but that his claim for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits is barred by the statute of limitations.

  The WCAB panel granted reconsideration to review the entire record and allow further proceedings on settlement, without ruling on the merits of the statute of limitations bar.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18094363 · 2026-06-30 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) because the current WCJ adjudicated a dispute between applicant and her former attorneys, and now that she is proceeding in pro per, it would be appropriate to appoint a new WCJ.

  The WCJ's Report and the record did not establish grounds for disqualification such as bias or prejudice, and the petition was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17517591 · 2026-06-23 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, who now represents himself, has filed numerous documents captioned "Petition for Reconsideration" purportedly seeking reconsideration of decisions issued on March 13, 2026 or April 1, 2026. As explained below, the record does not reveal any final orders, decisions, or awards issued on either date. In this matter, in a Findings and Award of November 14, 2025, it was found that while employed on June 26, 2021 as a handyman, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right knee, right leg, left hip and low back causing permanent total (100%) disability. Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's November 14, 2025 decision, which we denied on March 3, 2026.

  Applicant's petitions for reconsideration were dismissed because no final orders or decisions existed for review, and the petitions were untimely or improper under Labor Code sections 5909 and 5903.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12027044 · 2026-06-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED.

  The Petition for Reconsideration was denied because the petitioner did not allege any grounds allowed under Labor Code Section 5903 and the petition was not timely acted upon within 60 days as required by Labor Code Section 5909.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12790054 · 2026-06-11 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

  The Appeals Board rescinded the prior WCJ decision and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office cannot act while reconsideration is pending.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20510275 · 2026-06-08 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board panel found the petition was timely filed and acted upon within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909, but denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →