Los Angeles 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.

• ADJ8818515 · 2026-06-30 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that the matter is ready to proceed to trial. 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. 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. Removal 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 that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the

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

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8866704 · 2026-06-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ did not find that a contested claim existed as of May 30, 2013 or May 31, 2013, when the subpoenas were issued because the claim associated with ADJ8866704 was accepted with benefits paid on May 22, 2013. (Report, at p. 2.) As is demonstrated by the C&R and the WCJ's OACR, defendant only accepted liability for injury to the left thumb, even though applicant's hand was identified as a claimed body part. Notably, no medical records have ever been submitted. Defendant disputed liability for temporary disability indemnity benefits throughout the pendency of ADJ8866704, and as evidenced by the Application, temporary disability indemnity was a contested issue in ADJ8866704, and it was not resolved until the settlement of the case-in-chief. Accordingly, we disagree with the WCJ's finding as to whether a contested claim existed because the WCJ appears to construe the meaning of "for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim" very narrowly.

  The WCAB found that the cost petitioner met its burden to prove a contested claim existed at the time the services were rendered, contrary to the WCJ's prior finding, based on the evidence of disputed liability and contested issues including temporary disability indemnity.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ18574105 · 2026-06-26 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the case off calendar issued on February 12, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ noted in the minutes that defendant was to draft a letter to the qualified medical evaluator (QME) requesting that the QME address cumulative injury.

  The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20167209 · 2026-06-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the "Order Vacating and Setting Aside Minutes of Hearing and Notice of Mandatory Settlement Conference" issued on April 29, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant has also filed a petition to disqualify the WCJ.

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's conduct and no basis for disqualification under the applicable legal standards, thus denying the petitions.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9600339 · 2026-06-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on December 6, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant, while employed by defendant, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE)1 to various body parts; and that defendant did not deny medical treatment to applicant.

  The Board found that defendant's refusal to authorize treatment with Dr. Patterson, a physician employed by Casa Colina listed in the MPN, constituted an unreasonable denial of medical treatment under Labor Code section 4600 and related regulations and precedent cases Rivas and Montiel.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11186589 · 2026-06-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Ameri Chiropractic (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order (F&O) of May 10, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, arm, wrist, and back pursuant to the prior Findings & Order of April 12, 2019; that lien claimant is not entitled to any payments pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5402(c) as it failed to establish when the claim form was supplied to the employer by applicant or when the employer had knowledge of the injury alleged herein from any other source; that the services provided by lien claimant were self-procured medical expenses and defendant is not liable for reimbursement of those expenses; that lien claimant failed to establish any basis for reimbursement of the lien claim; and there is no basis to award costs to defendant or impose sanctions on lien claimant.

  The WCJ and the Board found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the evidence and prior Findings and Order.

  Official decision · page 1 →