San Jose 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.

• ADJ14802723 · 2026-06-29 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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, the WCJ ordered that applicant's petition to seal be heard together at trial amongst applicant's petition for 132a. The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10813). Thus, removal is proper in this case.

  The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 regarding the petition to seal records, justifying removal. The WCJ voluntarily recused, making disqualification moot. Removal was granted to address procedural errors before trial.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10175755 · 2026-06-02 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4III DISCUSSION Standard to qualify for SIBTF benefits under Labor Code § 4751 To be eligible for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) under Labor Code Section 4751, applicant must demonstrate that (1) he had pre-existing permanent partial disability; (2) the permanent disability from the subsequent industrial injury either (a) produces 35 percent disability or more or (b) 5 percent disability or more to an "opposite and corresponding member, (3) the combined pre-existing and subsequent permanent partial disability is greater than the subsequent permanent partial disability alone; and (4) the combined pre-existing and subsequent permanent partial disability is equal to 70 percent or more.

  Applicant failed to establish pre-existing partial permanent disability to the left shoulder prior to the subsequent industrial injury as required by Labor Code Section 4751 and relevant case law; medical evidence and testimony were insufficient and not corroborated.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ19203396 · 2026-05-29 · San Jose District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal (the Court) issued an order on October 1, 2025 denying a petition for writ of review filed by counsel for defendants, Llarena, Murdock, Lopez & Aziza, APC, in this matter, and remanded the matter to the Appeals Board for the purpose of making a supplemental award to respondent the applicant for reasonable attorney's fees for services rendered in connection with this petition. (Lab. Code, § 5801.)" (Order, October 1, 2025, emphasis added.) The Court's order was based on its finding "that there was no reasonable basis for the petition (See Lab. Code, § 5950; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1074.)" (Ibid.)

  The Court found no reasonable basis for defendants' petition for writ of review and remanded for supplemental attorney's fees to applicant and her counsel, which the Board awarded as stipulated by the parties.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20478767 · 2026-05-08 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based on our review of the record, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. There is a lack of substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's finding that applicant did not sustain injury to his alleged non-psychiatric body parts. By July 25, 2025, applicant had alleged injury to his head in the form of headaches, teeth, and circulatory system. In the initial evaluation on July 29, 2025, Dr. Abenes noted applicant's complaints related to his heart, headaches, and teeth. (Applicant Exhibit #1, at pp. 5, 7, 13.) Substantial medical evidence regarding causation to the alleged non-psychiatric body parts is necessary to render a determination on the issue of whether or not applicant sustained a separate and distinct injury from the psychiatric injury and that, in turn, is not subject to section 3208.3(d).

  The WCAB found the record was not properly developed with substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's finding of no injury to non-psychiatric body parts. The Board has a duty to further develop the record where evidence is insufficient and granted reconsideration to allow further proceedings on the non-psychiatric claims.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12909831 · 2026-05-05 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removaldeferred

  Determinative passage · p.10V. Accordingly, we grant defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record due to incomplete record and procedural issues.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ18309914 · 2026-04-20 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5As summarized in the Opinion on Decision, applicant testified that on 4/06/2023, he was pulling a hose to get ready for an inspection when he stepped on a plastic pipe, slipped, and fell backwards landing on the ground. He testified he injured his leg, calf, and back. He testified he was carrying the hose on his left side, and that when he landed, it was in a twisted position on his left side. He testified he received treatment for his injury that same day with a doctor from Kaiser.

  The applicant's credible testimony, supported by medical opinions including QME Dr. the applicant's, established a compensable injury to the left calf and lumbar spine as a compensable consequence of the industrial injury, despite some medical reports lacking specific lumbar spine documentation.

  Official decision · page 5 →