San Bernardino 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.

• ADJ931866 · 2026-06-15 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award, and Order issued on March 16, 2026. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained an injury to the lumbar spine, right shoulder, right wrist, ribs, thoracic spine, head, teeth, jaw (clenching), nose, right clavicle, left lung, sexual dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, urinary dysfunction, sleep, hearing, nervous system, psyche and esophagus (upper GI); and that applicant's injury caused permanent total disability of 100%.

  The Appeals Board found that the vocational expert's opinion on permanent total disability was not supported by substantial medical evidence, particularly regarding work restrictions and pain condition. The Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record and review the merits of the petition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19334270 · 2026-06-05 · San Bernardino District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813remanded

  Determinative passage · p.6As a matter of due process, applicant's attorney should have been provided with a hearing, and a record should have been created. Initially, we observe that applicant may very well have "appeared" at the conference as defined in WCAB Rule 10305(c), but since the record is devoid of any evidence, we cannot make the determination as to whether applicant satisfied the requirement. While sanctions can be imposed for a "[f]ailure to appear or appearing late at a conference or trial where a reasonable excuse is not offered..." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b)(1)), there is no evidence to determine if the excuse was reasonable, as no evidence has been admitted to the record. There is also no evidence regarding whether applicant's attorney received the NIT. Further, we observe that the NIT and the Order present other structural problems, as the WCJ did not specifically identify the offending person by name and only identified the law firm. Additionally, as noted previously, as part of the record, the WCJ should admit evidence as to whether the NIT and the Order were properly served on all parties.

  The record lacked evidence as to whether applicant's attorney received the Notice of Intention or whether the failure to appear was deliberate or excusable; due process required a hearing and a record before imposing sanctions.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17108250 · 2026-05-19 · San Bernardino District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12In light of the foregoing, we do not believe there is substantial evidence to justify the WCJ's decision to issue sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs.

  The WCAB found no substantial evidence to justify the WCJ's imposition of sanctions and attorney's fees and noted the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over some defendants at the time of the F&O.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ17142839 · 2026-04-28 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In the Report, the WCJ notes that applicant first raised the lack of medical evidence on the day of trial and suggests that the issue should have been raised earlier. However, that is the first time that applicant could have raised the issue. When a WCJ bypasses procedures and sets a matter directly onto the trial calendar without joint agreement of the parties, without completing a mandatory settlement conference, and without completing a pre-trial conference statement, the WCJ cannot then fault a party for raising an issue on the day of trial. The Appeals Board has adopted standardized Rules of Practice and Procedure, in part, to prevent this type of error from occurring. The WCJ's failure to follow the Rules of Practice and Procedure in this case resulted in denying applicant's due process right to discovery, and thus removal is appropriate.

  The WCJ's order was not a final order as it was a discovery order regarding deposition conduct; reconsideration is not available, but removal is granted due to the WCJ's failure to follow required procedures, denying applicant due process in discovery.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8775554 · 2026-04-20 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on January 12, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the Findings, as relevant here, the WCJ found that though applicant was found to be defendant's employee, applicant did not meet his burden of proving injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). As a result, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing in connection with his Application for Adjudication.

  Applicant provided unrebutted testimony and medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE; WCJ erred in disbelieving applicant's testimony and placing disproportionate weight on EDD form; absence of contrary evidence from defendant; injury found compensable by preponderance of evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16626738 · 2026-03-30 · San Bernardino District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, FMR Interventional Quality Pain Management, APC, seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on December 24, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that lien claimant failed its burden to prove industrial injury and to prove reasonableness and necessity of its treatment and ordered lien claimant to take nothing on its lien.

  The WCJ denied the lien for failure to prove industrial injury and reasonableness/necessity of treatment, but the WCAB found the record required further review and development, and that the Compromise and Release's good-faith dispute was not binding on the lien claimant. The WCAB granted reconsideration and deferred a final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →