Oxnard 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.

• ADJ11324273 · 2026-06-01 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on March 16, 2026, of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)'s February 17, 2026, Joint Findings, Award & Order (FA&O), in which, as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained 57% disability in ADJ11728160, the cumulative claim.

  The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to rebut the AMA Guides impairment ratings and denied the claim for 100% disability under the presumption of total disability for loss of both hands or use thereof.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ21211765 · 2026-06-01 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ's decision includes a finding regarding threshold issues of employment and injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

  The WCJ's decision included threshold findings making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but the petition only challenged an interlocutory discovery order. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, so removal was not warranted.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14728819 · 2026-05-07 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  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  The Appeals Board rescinded the decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for consideration of the proposed settlement because the District Office is precluded from acting while the case is pending reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11656888 · 2026-03-09 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In order to further study the factual and legal issues in these cases, we1 granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Order of August 13, 2021, wherein it was found "applicant did sustain injury to her right foot and bilateral knees on an industrial basis." Previously in this matter, in a Findings of Fact and Order of September 6, 2019, the WCJ had found industrial injury to the right foot. Defendant sought reconsideration of the September 6, 2019 decision and in an Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration of December 2, 2019, we found that the record as it then stood did not support a finding of industrial injury, but we sent the case back to the trial level to afford applicant the opportunity to procure and present substantial medical evidence of industrial injury.

  Applicant did not present substantial medical evidence tying the work incident to disability or need for medical treatment; medical opinions based on incomplete or speculative history were rejected.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9806382 · 2026-03-09 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.

  The WCJ's denial of the motion to allow testimony of PQME Dr. Cohen was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision, not a final order determining substantive rights or threshold issues, thus the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as not final.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9787530 · 2026-03-03 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, lien claimant's reporting is premised on a wholly inaccurate medical history and cannot constitute substantial medical evidence. Insofar as the parties contest the existence of an October 30, 2014 injury, the record reflects no supporting evidence beyond the non-substantial reporting of lien claimant. Accordingly, we concur with the WCJ's conclusion that lien claimant, standing in the shoes of applicant, has not met its affirmative burden of establishing industrial injury occurring on October 30, 2014. (Finding of Fact No. 2.)

  The lien claimant failed to prove the existence of the October 30, 2014 hernia injury, and the medical history relied upon was inaccurate and contradicted by the admitted March 28, 2014 hernia injury and related treatment.

  Official decision · page 6 →