Goleta 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.

• ADJ9417278 · 2026-06-16 · Goleta District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 29, 2022 Findings of Fact and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant failed to present evidence substantiating any preexisting labor disabling permanent disability and that applicant is not entitled to benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBF).

  Applicant failed to prove preexisting labor disabling permanent disability, but the record shows prior medical records noting orthopedic conditions and fibromyalgia, warranting further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14514363 · 2026-03-20 · Goleta District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from what applicant perceives to be inaction of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) upon a filed Compromise and Release. Applicant identifies no order, decision, or action that has occurred in the case within the petition other than a claim of delay.

  Petition dismissed because no WCJ action occurred prior to removal request, no aggrievement shown, and C&R was approved, making the petition moot.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18598754 · 2026-03-18 · Goleta District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

  Determinative passage · p.1Thereafter on February 25, 2026, the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement. As the issue raised is now moot, we will dismiss the petition for removal.

  The issue raised by the petition for removal became moot after the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10557068 · 2026-02-17 · Goleta District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the case is pending reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18181493 · 2025-10-14 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on July 11, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Tuesday, August 5, 2025 to file a timely petition. EAMS reflects that defendant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on August 5, 2025 at "18:32" (i.e., 6:32 p.m.). Therefore, it was deemed untimely filed on August 6, 2025 and will be dismissed.

  The petition was filed after 5:00 p.m. on the last permissible day, so it was deemed filed the next court day and thus untimely.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12281978 · 2025-10-09 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 1 →