Lodi 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.

• ADJ15556443 · 2026-09-21 · Lodi District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Award of June 30, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed on November 18, 2021 as a Highway Patrol officer, applicant sustained industrial injury to the shoulders, neck, lungs, ankles, left eye, head, chest, psyche and knees causing permanent disability of 87% and the need for further medical treatment. In finding permanent disability of 87%, the WCJ combined the disabilities attributable to the various body parts utilizing the Combined Values Chart of the 20025 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities and found that the vocational reporting of applicant’s expert Scott Simon did not constitute substantial medical evidence to rebut the scheduled rating. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in not following the vocational evidence that he submitted to find that applicant was not employable and not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and was thus permanently totally (100%) disabled. We have received an Answer from the defendant and the WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report). As explained below, we will grant reconsideration and defer the issue of permanent disability pending further development of the medical and vocational record and decision by the WCJ.

  The WCJ's original permanent disability rating was based on scheduled ratings but did not constitute substantial evidence due to reliance on temporary restrictions from a non-specialist. Further development of medical and vocational evidence is needed, including evaluation of sports hernia and updated vocational evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19945323 · 2026-08-31 · Lodi District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Order Regarding Remote Trial issued on June 3, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which denied the parties’ request for a remote trial on the issue of sanctions, penalties, and attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 5710. Applicant contends that good cause exists to permit remote proceedings. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ abused discretion in denying the request for remote trial without sufficient reasons, violating due process rights and the principles of liberal pleading and amendment to conform to proof. The Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order, allowing the remote trial.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13491649 · 2026-07-31 · Lodi District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders, Awards issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 12, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that:

  The WCJ found 33% permanent disability based on medical and vocational evidence, rejecting applicant's claim for 100% total disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the merits and record completeness.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19773230 · 2026-07-28 · Lodi District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5We agree with the WCJ that the rejection of liability was unreasonable, and that the penalty was warranted. Defendant makes much of when a defendant’s duty to investigate a claim first arises. Regardless of when such a duty arises generally, in this case applicant testified that his employer told him that the paperwork for his workers’ compensation case had been initiated soon after the injury, and the WCJ found this testimony credible. In fact, this testimony was completely corroborated by the fact that applicant received a denial on July 23, 2004, a little more than two months after his injury. The denial expressly refers to “your workers’ compensation claim” and “your cardiac claim.” The denial states that it was made “after careful review and consideration” and acknowledges applicant’s upcoming cardiac appointment at Stanford. Although the grounds for the denial were that there was no “substantial medical, legal or factual evidence to support a confirmed diagnosis for a heart condition,” applicant’s co-worker’s and supervisor had witnessed applicant’s injury or its immediate after-effects, saw him transported to the emergency room, where he was admitted to the hospital.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11214895 · 2026-07-17 · Lodi District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 6, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that:

  The WCJ found 73% and 13% permanent disability with apportionment supported by substantial evidence; applicant argued for a joint 100% award based on Vigil and Kite; the Appeals Board found the record incomplete on apportionment and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8427517 · 2026-07-15 · Lodi District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the “Findings of Fact, Orders, and Opinion on Decision” (F&O) issued on March 3, 2023, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), in order to further study the factual and legal issues. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, in pro per, was not entitled to an additional and/or replacement panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) in the specialty of internal medicine. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred because the reporting of the agreed medical evaluator (AME) does not constitute substantial evidence and that further development of the record with the current AME is not warranted. We have received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, as our Decision After Reconsideration we will rescind the March 3, 2023 F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The WCJ found applicant was not entitled to an additional or replacement QME in internal medicine, but the Appeals Board rescinded that decision and returned the matter for further proceedings because the issue was not properly analyzed and further development of the record was warranted.

  Official decision · page 1 →