Van Nuys 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.

• ADJ21055490 · 2026-10-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Set Aside and/or Amend the Compromise and Release and Order Approving the Compromise and Release (Petition) issued by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) on July 14, 2026. Applicant contends that the Compromise and Release (C&R) included body parts that were not industrially injured and that this error might negatively impact his Medicare benefits. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition and the contents of the Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, for the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration so that the WCJ can consider it as one to set aside the Order Approving.

  The Petition was dismissed as premature because the WCJ did not hold a hearing or create a complete record to assess the parties' understanding of the C&R and the impact on Medicare benefits, requiring remand for hearing and record development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10895246 · 2026-10-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration to allow us time to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. 1 We now issue our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Lien claimant, Edwin Haronian, M.D., seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award 2 (JF&A) issued on July 6, 2022 by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant on September 1, 2016, October 1, 2016, and during the period from January 1, 2003 through October 17, 2016, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring during the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, arms, wrists, back, legs, ankle, foot or other orthopedic injuries. The WCJ further found that the reports of orthopedic panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), Elliott Schaffzin, M.D., dated December 30, 2019, and PQME, Joanne Halbrecht, M.D., dated October 26, 2019, and June 2, 2020, to be the “more reliable” reports, and that the reports of Dr. Haronian and Jonathan Kohan M.D. are not substantial medical evidence. Thereafter, the WCJ issued an order that they take nothing on their liens as well as an order dismissing both liens with prejudice.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the reports of Drs. Schaffzin and Halbrecht constitute substantial medical evidence, while the reports of Drs. Haronian and Kohan lack sufficient medical history, reasoning, and causation analysis to support injury AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13427439 · 2026-10-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6This order was based on a Notice of Intent which issued in the supplemental pages to the Minutes of Hearing dated October 16, 2025. While we are sympathetic to the WCJ’s frustration about the court’s time and resources, in workers’ compensation proceedings, “[d]emurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) Yet, no record was ever created, no evidence was ever admitted, and no testimony was ever given in support of multitude of orders issued here in violation of WCAB Rule 10787. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.

  The Appeals Board found that the Notice of Intent to Sanction did not provide proper notice, no record or evidence supported the sanctions, and due process was not afforded; therefore, the sanctions order was rescinded and the matter returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10598932 · 2026-09-28 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 25, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained admitted injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, GERD, and psyche while employed as a sheriff deputy during the period from October 3, 2007 through September 7, 2016. The WCJ further found that the injury herein caused 58% permanent disability and need for further medical treatment. Applicant contends that the WCJ should have relied on medical and vocational evidence, the catastrophic nature of applicant’s injury, and the holding in LeBoeuf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 587] to find a higher level of permanent disability. Defendant filed an Answer.

  The WCJ found 58% permanent disability but denied rebuttal of the PDRS through vocational evidence due to lack of substantial evidence from the vocational expert. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11775583 · 2026-09-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.17Because the February 16, 2021 UR decision made clear that interim home health care services would be necessary until a permanent solution could be found to address applicant’s home health needs, and because the record reflects no efforts to reach such resolution, we agree with the WCJ’s decision to enforce the February 16, 2021 UR decision. However, we also observe that the March 16, 2021 RFA did not present a previously unresolved question of medical necessity, and as such, we do not concur with the WCJ’s burden shifting analysis. Accordingly, we will amend Finding of Fact No. 3 to reflect that the UR decision of February 16, 2021 determined that the nature of applicant’s condition requires the provision of continued home health care services until a more specific, permanent solution is found. We will then amend the Order to reflect that defendant must continue to provide the specified home health care services, six hours per day, five days per week, until such time as the parties can demonstrate reasonable efforts to identify and implement a permanent solution to applicant’s need for home health care services.

  The WCAB found that the February 16, 2021 UR decision established the need for continued home health care services until a permanent solution is found, and that the WCAB has jurisdiction over the dispute as the March 16, 2021 RFA did not present a new question of medical necessity triggering IMR jurisdiction.

  Official decision · page 17 →
• ADJ11126563 · 2026-09-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeSJDB voucherdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration 1 to provide an opportunity to further study the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 9, 2022 Findings of Fact & Order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to reimbursement for education-related training or skill enhancement incurred at the Tree of Life training, which the parties stipulated is not a certified provider per California law. The WCJ also found that there is no evidence to show that the two-year statute of limitations for the Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher was tolled and that the voucher expired by operation of law. Applicant contends that the legislative purpose of the SJDB is to assist injured workers in obtaining gainful employment and that refusal to reimburse applicant for the Tree of Life training defeats the purpose of the SJDB program. Applicant also contends that the statute of limitations tolled during the time period the insurance carrier denied applicant’s claim and pending adjudication of the issue.

  The Tree of Life training was not certified or approved under California law, and the voucher expired by operation of law without evidence of tolling. The applicant did not demonstrate entitlement to reimbursement or tolling of the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 1 →