Santa Ana 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.

• ADJ8760173 · 2026-10-08 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed on December 27, 2012, as an electrician, sustained an industrial injury to his back, left shoulder, right knee, left ankle, psyche, urologic system, internal system, and in the form of sexual dysfunction, resulting in 100% permanent disability without apportionment. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in awarding 100% permanent disability without apportionment, arguing that the award incorrectly assigns liability for permanent disability not caused by the industrial injury and fails to apply the non-industrial apportionment established by the Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). Specifically, defendant argues that the reporting of applicant’s vocational expert, Ray Largo, M.A., does not constitute substantial evidence because he disregarded the medical apportionment determinations provided by the QMEs. Furthermore, defendant asserts that the WCJ erred by admitting and relying on the medical reporting of Mohammed Zain Vally, M.D., contending Dr. Vally’s reports are inadmissible and do

  The WCAB rejected the medical apportionment determinations by QMEs as legally invalid and lacking substantial medical evidence. The vocational expert's alternative analysis based on purely industrial factors, including psychiatric injury and medication side effects, was accepted, supporting the 100% permanent disability award without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13153421 · 2026-09-21 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The San Diego Padres (“the Padres”) seek reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued on July 21, 2026 by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. 1 In our Decision, we found that the exercise of WCAB jurisdiction over applicant’s claim was proper in light of the recent Court of Appeal decision Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1268 [90 Cal.Comp.Cases 997] (“Gandy”) because applicant was hired in California under the standard articulated by that case. Gandy opined that hire by a California-based team would constitute hire in California even if the offer of employment was accepted elsewhere, because “the California-based team’s location in California would supply the necessary connection to California to deem the contract a California contract,” thereby conferring subject-matter jurisdiction under Labor Code 2 section 3600.5, subdivision (a) and/or section 5305. (Id. at p. 1280.) Because Gandy was issued after we granted reconsideration in this matter, we provided the parties with an opportunity to file supplemental briefing prior to issuing our Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant filed such briefing, but we did not receive any supplemental briefing from the Padres. In this Petition for Reconsideration, the Padres contend that they attempted to file

  The WCAB found that the exercise of jurisdiction was proper based on the binding appellate precedent in Atlanta Falcons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gandy) (2025) which held that hire by a California-based team constitutes hire in California, conferring jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5 and 5305.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16611684 · 2026-09-21 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Amended Findings and Award on May 6, 2026. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Monday, June 1, 2026 to seek reconsideration. EAMS reflects that applicant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on June 26, 2026. Therefore, it was untimely filed and will be dismissed. If we were not dismissing the petition as untimely, we would deny it on the merits for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Amended Report.

  The petition was filed after the 25-day deadline from the final decision and was therefore untimely and dismissed.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10684126 · 2026-09-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Award 1 issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 3, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained admitted injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her back, while employed April 21, 2015. The WCJ further found that the injury herein caused 34% permanent disability, after 50% apportionment. Applicant contends that the WCJ should have relied on vocational expert evidence to find her 100% permanently disabled, with no apportionment. We did not receive an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant the Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will 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. Once a final decision after

  The WCJ found 50% apportionment based on QME Dr. Perry Secor's well-reasoned and persuasive medical reports, resulting in 34% permanent disability after apportionment. Applicant challenged this relying on PTP Dr. Andrew Merritt's reports and vocational expert evidence, but the WCAB preliminarily found Dr. Merritt's reports unratable and vocational evidence insufficient. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the merits and entire record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ21161039 · 2026-09-04 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The medical opinions of Dr. Nikakhtar constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE and were unrefuted. The WCJ provided the following analysis in the Opinion on Decision (OOD): A defendant will not be liable for medical treatment where there is no industrial injury. (Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588, 1593 (Appeals Board en banc).) Where a lien claimant litigates the issue of entitlement to payment for industrially related medical treatment, the lien claimant stands in the shoes of the injured worker and the lien claimant must establish industrial injury by a preponderance of evidence. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) Cal.3d 57, 67 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Kunz, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1592.)”

  The WCJ found substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE based on Dr. Nikakhtar's medical opinion, which was unrefuted and based on reasonable medical probability after an adequate examination and evaluation. Defendant failed to provide evidence to refute the medical history or opinion. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's findings and admitted lien claimants' exhibits into evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13084476 · 2026-08-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 29, 2026, wherein the WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed by defendant during the period June 1, 1996 through November 26, 2019 as a corrections officer, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in the form of diabetes, hypertension, and to his respiratory and pulmonary system, as well as his heart, and the applicant’s disability resulting from his heart and respiratory disorder are 100% industrial. Defendant contends that the WCJ failed to account for the parties’ off the record stipulation(s) that the re

  The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration was timely and that the parties were properly notified, warranting granting reconsideration and deferring final decision for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →