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.

• ADJ19901004 · 2026-06-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the "Order Rescinding Order of Dismissal and Notice of Status Conference (Rule 10961)" issued on February 25, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ, in response to applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded an order dismissing applicant's case for lack of prosecution.

  The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14972494 · 2026-06-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the February 3, 2026 Findings of Fact, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant as a chief negotiator for the nurses' union, from February 4, 2005 to July 13, 2021, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her "internal" and eyes/vision, and claimed injury to various parts.

  The WCJ's finding of industrial injury to the eyes/vision is supported by substantial medical evidence including the ophthalmology QME Dr. Sami's opinion, the internal medicine AME Dr. Grodan's deferral to Dr. Sami, credible applicant testimony, and contemporaneous treating records. The Report on Reconsideration supplies the reasoning required under Labor Code section 5313, curing any deficiency in the original Opinion on Decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ21267547 · 2026-06-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On March 23, 2026, defendant timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration. On April 15, 2026, the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation (Report), recommending that we deny the Petition for Reconsideration. The WCJ did not set a hearing to address whether the Compromise & Release (C&R) should be set aside. On April 29, 2026, the parties submitted an amended C&R. On May 4, 2026, the WCJ issued an amended OACR. Turning first to the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration, we note that as observed by the WCJ, there was no evidentiary record with respect to the allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration. Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.)

  The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ erred by recommending denial without creating an evidentiary record and by issuing an amended order while the matter was pending before the Appeals Board, violating procedural rules.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ21050654 · 2026-06-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The issue before us is whether applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits where applicant's employment was terminated the day after the industrial injury because his work permit expired, and applicant has not been legally permitted to work since. Here, we find the record is sufficient to affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits from the date he stopped working, for the reasons set forth in the Report. Defendant has not met its burden of proof necessary to establish that defendant made applicant a bona fide offer of modified work to relieve itself of liability to pay applicant temporary disability benefits.2

  The defendant failed to prove that a bona fide offer of modified work was made or that modified work was actually available to the applicant within his restrictions, despite the applicant's termination due to an expired work permit. The WCJ's credibility determinations were upheld, and the evidence did not meet the burden of proof to relieve the defendant of liability for temporary disability benefits.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ20406289 · 2026-06-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order denying petition for joinder issued on April 10, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  Removal was granted because the WCJ issued the order denying joinder without creating a record, violating due process and causing irreparable harm to the defendant, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13021836 · 2026-06-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration by defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period. In Case No. ADJ20509813, the WCJ found that applicant sustained

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to the excretory and reproductive systems during various employment periods, but the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on settlement approval.

  Official decision · page 1 →