Redding 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.

• ADJ11113222 · 2026-06-22 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 13, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which ordered further development of the record.

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20695668 · 2026-06-12 · Redding District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].)

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to fairly determine the applicant's average weekly wage or earning capacity, deferring the issue for further evidentiary development.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ20169304 · 2026-04-20 · Redding District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11evidence. PQME Dr. Taylor discusses many contributing factors he believes have a bearing on the cause of applicant's claimed injury to provide percentages of causation, but PQME Dr. Taylor does not provide the reasoning linking the factors to the injury. This defect is not cured by referring to clinical expertise and years of training. Further, PQME Dr. Taylor provided opinions based on an incomplete record and appears to have relied on an incorrect history. In summary, PQME Dr. Taylor's opinions are not substantial evidence. (Hegglin, supra, pp. 169-170.)

  PQME Dr. Taylor's opinions on causation were found not to be substantial medical evidence due to lack of reasoning, incomplete record, and incorrect history; therefore, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ19868198 · 2026-04-20 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the January 27, 2026 Findings and Order ("F&O"), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that applicant did not suffer a work-related injury, based upon a lack of supporting medical evidence. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by failing admit and consider reports prepared by a Qualified Medical Evaluator ("QME") that found applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment ("AOE/COE").

  The WCJ initially found no medical evidence supporting injury, but the WCAB found the QME reports were critical evidence that should have been admitted and that the WCJ erred in denying remote testimony and in proceeding without considering the QME reports, thus remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ21105749 · 2026-04-14 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of January 5, 2026, wherein it was found that applicant "did not sustain any injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment." Applicant claimed that while employed on June 4, 2025 as an IT Analyst, he sustained industrial injury to his right shoulder.

  The WCJ's credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence, including witness testimony and applicant's inconsistent statements, leading to denial of industrial injury claim.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14015513 · 2026-04-13 · Redding District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award and Opinion on Decision (F&A) issued on January 7, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed on October 5, 2020, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the femur, bruised lung, and in the form of a traumatic brain injury; (2) the employer has furnished some medical treatment, and the primary treating physician is Dr. Timothy Lo; (3) there has not been a timely Utilization Review (UR) denial of the August 20, 2025 Request For Authorization (RFA) from Dr. Lo for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week of home attendant care; and (4) the requested treatment in the form of home attendant care is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of industrial injury.

  The medical evidence was unanimous that the applicant requires 24/7 home attendant care as reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury, supported by the primary treating physician Dr. Lo, the AME Dr. Munday, and a Life Care Plan. The defendant's contention that the RFA was incomplete and the Utilization Review was validly denied was rejected as invalid and untimely, allowing the WCJ to determine medical necessity.

  Official decision · page 1 →