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.

• 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 →
• ADJ118647 · 2026-06-08 · San Diego District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Applicant did not meet her burden of showing that she should be awarded a penalty on late mileage for treatment for her neck and bilateral shoulders. She did not identify any particular mileage reimbursement request that was late. She did not indicate when they were sent to Defendant or when she received payment. Teri Thompson, program coordinator for the City of San Diego and current adjuster for Applicant's claim, credibly testified that she had issues with Applicant's mileage reimbursement requests. The issues varied but sometimes the requests were not legible, or had dates of service that were cut off, or were requesting mileage for treatment for body parts that were not industrial body parts, or were requesting mileage where the location where treatment occurred was not clear. When problems with mileage requests were noted, applicant would receive in writing why there was a problem with her mileage requests (May 22, 2025 Summary of Evidence, page 2, lines 10-22). For the reasons stated above, applicant did not meet her burden of showing that she should be awarded a penalty for late mileage reimbursement.

  Applicant failed to identify any specific late mileage reimbursement request or prove entitlement to a penalty for late reimbursement.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ7940908 · 2026-06-01 · San Diego District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Additionally, the WCJ weighed the witnesses' testimony and found them to be credible in their assertions. Realistically, there was not much differentiation between the testimony of the employer from Applicant's testimony. We accord this credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while testifying at trial. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Thus, applicant failed to prove either a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of section 132a, or an actual violation of that section by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to his termination or disciplinary actions.

  Applicant failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a or an actual violation by a preponderance of the evidence regarding his termination or disciplinary actions. The WCJ found the employer's witnesses credible and the disciplinary actions consistent with company policy, not discriminatory.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ10362589 · 2026-05-18 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that there is substantial medical evidence to support the WCA's decision regarding industrial causation without additional development of the record. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record due to unclear substantial medical evidence and incomplete record development.

  Official decision · page 7 →