Long Beach 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.

• ADJ16635028 · 2026-06-26 · Long Beach District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Whether Sanctions Should be Imposed Against Lien Claimant and/or their Representative [t]he regulations mandate that lien claimants appear at all lien conferences, either in person or by attorney or non-attorney representative.1 The failure to appear at a hearing is sanctionable conduct.2 Sanctions are appropriate for failures to appear where a reasonable excuse is not offered or the offending party has demonstrated a pattern of such conduct.3 (Emphasis added.)

  The tribunal found that Paperwork & More had notice of the hearing and failed to offer a reasonable excuse for non-appearance; sanctions were appropriate and imposed jointly and severally on Paperwork & More and Stanley B. Johnson, but not on Premier Psychological Services.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ13582881 · 2026-06-26 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of March 16, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed as an assistant manager applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of a hernia and to the low back, causing the need for further medical treatment. Industrial injury to the hernia had been accepted by the defendant, but injury to the low back was contested. All other issues including date of injury, temporary disability, and permanent disability were deferred.

  The Appeals Board found substantial evidence supporting industrial injury to the low back based on the entire medical record and credible applicant testimony, favoring the treating physician's opinions over the PQME Dr. Shah's contrary opinion.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12009010 · 2026-06-23 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and found reconsideration an adequate remedy; the petition for disqualification was dismissed for failure to comply with timeliness and specificity requirements.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12788201 · 2026-05-01 · Long Beach District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant CVS Health Corporation1 seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Order of January 23, 2026, wherein it was found, "Pursuant to Labor Code § 4553, the applicant was injured as a result of the serious and willful misconduct of her manager." (Finding No. 3.) In this matter, while employed on November 14, 2019 as an assistant store manager, applicant sustained admitted injury to the right forearm, right wrist, right fingers, right shoulder, right hand, and psyche. However, "the nature and extent of Applicant's injuries are all deferred pending further discovery."

  Applicant did not carry burden to show serious and willful misconduct was proximate cause of injury; manager's act of grabbing tote bag was inappropriate but not done with intent or reckless disregard likely to cause serious injury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9298733 · 2026-04-06 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.91) Applicant met its burden to show that the Defendant did not pay the Award timely and properly; 2) No finding could be made at this juncture whether the Defendant should be sanctioned per the allegations in the Petition for Sanctions until the record was developed; and 3) The Defendant's Petition for Sanctions could not be heard at this trial as sanctions against the Applicant were not raised in the Pretrial Conference Statement and the Petition was not filed until the day of the trial.17

  The WCJ found that the defendant did not pay the Award timely and properly based on the plain language of the Compromise & Release and the Joint Findings of Fact and Orders, which the WCAB panel adopted and upheld on reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ16768287 · 2026-03-25 · Long Beach District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4II. Defendant contends that the QME's reports do not constitute substantial medical evidence and that further discovery is necessary. For the reasons stated in the WCJ's Opinion, we agree with the WCJ that the QME's reports constitute substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. A WCJ's decision must be based on admitted evidence and must be supported by substantial evidence (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc); 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].) The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].) Defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Apportionment of permanent disability must be based on causation (Lab.

  The QME's reports constitute substantial medical evidence showing no apportionment to the applicant's permanent disability, and defendant failed to provide rebuttal evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →