San Francisco 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.

• ADJ19581832 · 2026-10-05 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11 The Petition for Reconsideration contains documents attached in violation of WCAB Rule 10945(c). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(c).) These documents have not been considered, and applicant is admonished that despite her status as unrepresented, she is required to follow the WCAB’s Rules. As necessary, she should consult with the Information and Assistance Officer at the district office. 2 In her Petition, applicant appears to contend that the defendant’s denial notice is defective, however a defective denial notice is not a valid issue for an expedited hearing and that issue is not before us.

  The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ22856965 · 2026-09-08 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Turning to the merits, with regard to entitlement to temporary disability benefits beyond August 14, 2024, applicant essentially argues that defendant is estopped from relying on the permanent and stationary date in Dr. Feinberg’s report because defendant ignored Dr. Feinberg’s repeated opinion that applicant sustained industrial injury and compensable disability. 4 While we appreciate applicant’s rhetorical flourish, our decision must be based on the evidence in the record, and we have no power to punitively create further temporary disability because of unreasonable delays or bad faith litigation tactics. The Labor Code provides other remedies for this type of conduct (see, e.g., Lab. Code, §§ 5813, 5814). “[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker’s healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status.” (Huston v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Here, Dr. Feinberg opined that applicant’s condition reached permanent and stationary status on August 13, 2024.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ20384548 · 2026-09-04 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on June 3, 2026 by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed on January 15, 2024 as a seasonal helper by defendant, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his left shoulder, and that the record was devoid of substantial medical evidence as to injury AOE/COE, and that the medical evidentiary record needs to be developed. The WCJ further found that applicant’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant contends that applicant’s failure to appear at either depositions, court hearings, or otherwise participate in his claim does not warrant development of the record, and that the findings of fact should be amended to reflect that applicant has failed to carry his burden of establishing injury AOE/COE. Defendant also asserts that the WCJ should have deferred a finding as to the statute of limitations defense without a finding as to either date of injury or injury. Applicant did not file an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) on July 9, 2026 recommending that defendant’s petition be granted and that the finding regarding statute of limitations be amended.

  The WCJ found the medical record needed development to determine injury AOE/COE, but the WCAB rescinded the findings and remanded for further proceedings due to lack of proper notice and representation issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13514341 · 2026-09-01 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found the opinion of QME Dr. Hindocha to be substantial medical evidence supporting a 71% permanent disability rating by adding impairments due to synergistic effects on activities of daily living (ADLs), rebutting the use of the Combined Values Chart (CVC).

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13531096 · 2026-08-31 · San Francisco District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Because there is not support in the evidence that the removal of CABA led to the applicant's October 30, 2019 injury, there also cannot be knowledge on the part of Anthony Hodges that removal of would lead to the applicant's injury. * * * In this matter, I am not persuaded that the failure to remove Craig from Hodges Residential constitutes an intentional act with knowledge that serious injury was probable... I do not find that the mere presence of Craig in the home created an unsafe work environment. Additionally, I am persuaded that Anthony Hodges was taking reasonable steps to try to alleviate the danger posed by Craig. * * * Therefore, I do not find that the failure to remove Craig from Hodges Residential constitutes serious and willful misconduct by Hodges Residential. * * * For the reasons discussed above, I do not find that the applicant has met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Hodges Residential committed serious and willful misconduct in relation to the applicant’s October 30, 2019 injury. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 15-19.) It is from this F&O that applicant seeks reconsideration.

  Applicant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant committed serious and willful misconduct causing the injury. The evidence showed defendant took reasonable steps to manage the dangerous resident and did not act with knowledge that serious injury was probable.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ18016076 · 2026-08-31 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11I deferred the issue of earnings and set the matter for status conference regarding the earnings issue; therefore, I did not rule on the issue of earnings. As such, the rate of permanent disability indemnity and attorney’s fees were not yet calculated or awarded. 3. Contentions on reconsideration. In its petition for reconsideration, defendant contends this WCJ erred in relying on the reporting of QME Dr. Fields Brewer regarding compensability of the cervical spine and left shoulder, and WPI opinions. Defendant contends that the WPIs assigned by the QME are not substantial evidence and should not be utilized in determining applicant’s permanent disability. DISCUSSION 1. Compensability of cervical spine and left shoulder Applicant bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a); 3202.5.) It is sufficient to show that work was a contributing cause of the injury.

  The QME Dr. Fields Brewer's well-reasoned medical opinion, supported by applicant's testimony and medical records, established industrial causation for cervical spine and left shoulder injuries, meeting the burden of proof for compensability.

  Official decision · page 11 →