San Diego 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.

• ADJ17096552 · 2026-09-04 · San Diego District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3him … to the hazards of the occupational disease or cumulative injury, whichever occurs first.” Applicant worked for defendant until November 21, 2021. Zurich argues that liability cannot be imposed against it because applicant did not present substantial medical evidence that applicant sustained injurious exposure during its period of alleged coverage. In other words, while it is uncontested that applicant worked until November 21, 2021, Zurich complains that applicant did not prove that any industrial exposure between the period between September 16, 2021 and November 21, 2021 contributed to disability or the need for further medical treatment. While Zurich is correct that a defendant may escape liability if it can show that a discrete period of employment was not injurious (Scott Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the last date of injurious exposure was November 21, 2021, and the date of injury under section 5412 was September 2, 2022, based on medical evidence and applicant's knowledge of industrial causation. The statute of limitations defense was rejected because the claim was filed within one year of the date of injury.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11046834 · 2026-07-22 · San Diego District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.18Based on the opinion of primary treating physician Larry Dodge, M.D., applicant has 13 percent whole person impairment to her lumbar spine under the AMA Guides for the cumulative injury from November 3, 2003 through November 3, 2004. 8. Based on the opinion of qualified medical examiner Beth Bathgate, M.D., applicant’s cumulative injury from November 3, 2004 through September 11, 2017 caused whole person impairment of 13 percent under the AMA Guides. 9. Defendant has met its burden of establishing a total overlap between past and current injuries and thus has met it burden to show apportionment under section 4664(b). 10. Applicant has not suffered any additional permanent impairment or resulting permanent partial disability from the November 3, 2004 through September 11, 2017 industrial injury.

  Defendant met burden to show total overlap between prior and current injuries, supporting apportionment under Labor Code section 4664(b).

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ15756130 · 2026-07-22 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration in this matter to provide an opportunity to further study the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration. Having completed our review, we now issue our Decision After Reconsideration. Defendant seeks reconsideration of the March 4, 2026 Order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) rescinded a prior order vacating submission and reinstated a Findings and Award (F&A) issued on December 11, 2025. Therein, the WCJ determined that applicant, while employed as a cleaner from June 21, 2021 to January 11, 2022, sustained industrial injury to her neck, lumber spine, and bilateral knees but did not sustain injury to her trunk, legs, ankles, feet, all fingers and psyche.

  The WCJ found injury to the neck, lumbar spine, and bilateral knees but not to other body parts, and the WCAB noted the WCJ relied on objective evidence rather than applicant's credibility for this finding.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18031412 · 2026-06-26 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Medland Medical seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 6, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that, while employed as a Machine Operator/Packer, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her bilateral arms, bilateral hands, back, bilateral hips, and bilateral legs. The WCJ further found that the case in chief settled via Compromise and Release with an Order Approving issuing October 14, 2025; that lien claimant did not meet the burden of proof on the injury AOE/COE, such that the lien is disallowed in its entirety. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that lien claimant's lien be disallowed in its entirety.

  The lien claimant failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish injury AOE/COE based on the medical record and evidentiary record submitted. The ultimate conclusion of industrial causation was deferred to the Trier of Fact, and the WCJ found no sufficient evidence to support the lien claimant's claim.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15211632 · 2026-06-25 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2026 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that a prior utilization review (UR) decision denying authorization for a requested treatment barred a subsequent request for authorization (RFA) for the same treatment submitted on December 4, 2025. The WCJ further determined that the UR decision issued on December 8, 2025 regarding authorization for a wheelchair accessible hotel room was untimely but that the requested services were not medically necessary.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in concluding the prior UR decision barred the subsequent request and that the December 8, 2025 UR decision was untimely but the requested treatment was medically necessary, warranting reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18890787 · 2026-06-15 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, the failure of applicant to timely appeal the order finding him to be a vexatious litigant within the stated time limits precludes the Appeals Board from considering the issue of the PWCJ's findings declaring him a vexatious litigant.

  The Appeals Board denied the request to vacate the vexatious litigant order because the applicant failed to timely appeal the order within the prescribed time limits, which is jurisdictional and precludes consideration of the issue.

  Official decision · page 8 →