Riverside 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.

• ADJ8984436 · 2026-06-30 · Riverside District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.151. the applicant, age 31 at the time of injury, while employed during the period from November 5, 2005 through April 9, 2013, as a senior investigative technician, occupation group number in dispute, at Riverside, California, by the County of Riverside, permissibly self-insured and self-administered, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her psyche and internal system.

  The Appeals Board found that applicant sustained injury to psyche and internal system arising out of employment, and that defendant did not meet its burden to prove the injury was barred by lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions under Labor Code section 3208.5(h).

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ11349173 · 2026-06-26 · Riverside District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, while the WCJ relied upon the submitted medical reporting from the AME/PQMEs for her findings on permanent disability, she found that the reports of Drs. Gupta and Wood are not substantial evidence on the issue of apportionment.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the opinions of Drs. Gupta and Wood on apportionment lacked substantial medical evidence and reasoning, thus defendant did not meet its burden of proof on apportionment.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ20725506 · 2026-06-26 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order denying petition for automatic reassignment issued on March 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ denied applicant's request for automatic reassignment because it was not timely.

  The WCJ and WCAB panel found the petition for removal was not timely filed under WCAB Rule 10788 and that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15346443 · 2026-06-12 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award (F&A) issued on March 6, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained industrial injury during the cumulative trauma period from September 1, 2010, through January 14, 2023, to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral elbows, bilateral wrists, bilateral feet, heart, psyche, and in the forms of tinnitus, headaches, and sleep disorder. (ADJ17509439)1 The WCJ further found that applicant sustained an injury to his psyche on January 13, 2023 (ADJ17190195), and a separate injury on July 16, 2020, to his right shoulder, right elbow, left thumb, and bilateral knees (ADJ15346443). With respect to the cumulative injury, the WCJ found that applicant sustained 87% permanent disability. The WCJ also determined that "Kite" did not apply and the medical evidence did not support it.

  The WCJ rejected addition of impairments due to insufficient evidence of synergy and failure to meet the Vigil standard, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficient and remanded for further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12333976 · 2026-06-08 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, the Findings were issued and served on February 1, 2021, and our Decision was issued and served on March 16, 2026. Defendant's Petitions were filed on April 7, 2026. Although the Petition as to our March 16, 2026 Decision is timely, the Petition as to the February 1, 2021 Findings was filed in excess of 25 days after the service of the decision, and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, defendant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. We therefore dismiss as untimely defendant's Petition as to the February 1, 2021 Findings.

  The petition was filed more than 25 days after service of the decision, beyond the statutory period, and is therefore untimely.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ15208194 · 2026-06-04 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ decision, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings on the proposed settlement.

  Official decision · page 1 →