Santa Rosa 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.

• ADJ14132796 · 2026-10-07 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ denied defendant’s request, referring to the Policy and Procedure Manual section 1.135, and stating that defendant’s basis for his request was insufficient to determine whether the request was proper. This particular guidance is inconsistent with the minimal requirements for requesting a transcript pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800. The only requirement is a written request accompanied by a check as a deposit for the transcript, which here defendant provided. In nearly all instances, any person may request a transcript at any time in compliance with WCAB Rule 10800, and they will be entitled to obtain it. Accordingly, we will grant the Petition to issue an order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800 that the proceedings and testimony from the October 11, 2022 trial in this matter be transcribed and promptly filed in EAMS, with simultaneous notice of the filing to all active parties and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Office of the Commissioners.

  The petition was granted because the denial of the transcript request was found to be inconsistent with WCAB Rule 10800 and the petitioner showed potential significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9109258 · 2026-09-14 · Santa Rosa District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8not only due, but overdue after payment in the amount of $71.20 was requested in a previous notice dated January 20, 2012. We also note that the notice of cancellation issued by State Fund was in compliance with Insurance Code section 676.8, which requires a minimum of 10 days’ written notice to the policyholder or insurer in the event of cancellation for failure to make premium payments when they are due. The February 21, 2012 notice of cancellation indicated that the policy would be cancelled for underpayment on March 8, 2012, which is 15 days’ notice. Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, and substitute a new finding that State Fund effectively cancelled Dynamic’s policy due to Dynamic’s failure to timely pay a required premium payment that was due by March 8, 2012. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that State Fund’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the WCA on February 2, 2026 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the February 2, 2026 Findings and Order is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:

  The Appeals Board found that State Fund properly cancelled the policy due to Dynamic's failure to timely pay the required premium payment due March 8, 2012, in compliance with Insurance Code section 676.8 and proper notice requirements.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ17078550 · 2026-09-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.32 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant 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 merits of the petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14292485 · 2026-09-04 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the June 25, 2026 Amended Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a highway patrol officer on October 1, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his brain, psyche, neuropsychiatric system, cervical spine, and thoracic spine. The WCJ found that applicant’s injuries resulted in permanent and total disability. Defendant contends that the WCJ failed to adequately consider applicant’s residual functional capacity and post-injury activities. Defendant further asserts the WCJ erred in rejecting defendant’s vocational expert reporting and that the evidentiary record does not support a finding of permanent and total disability. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons set forth below, we will deny reconsideration.

  The WCJ and WCAB found substantial medical and vocational evidence supporting applicant's permanent and total disability, including credible medical expert opinions and vocational expert reports showing applicant is not amenable to rehabilitation or employment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10788304 · 2026-07-29 · Santa Rosa District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.25Actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of applicant’s cumulative trauma injury to his psyche (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(1)), and included mandatory overtime and stressful situations on a day to day basis including incidents with inmates during his tenure as a correctional officer, and a February 6, 2017 meeting with two sergeants. 5. The opinion of Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator Robert Mosby, Ph.D., as to the percentage of causation of applicant’s psychiatric injury attributable to the February 6, 2017 meeting with two sergeants is not substantial medical evidence. 6. Given the subject matter and factual setting of this case, the February 6, 2017 meeting with two sergeants was not a “personnel action” taken against applicant. 7. Given the totality of the circumstances in this case, the February 6, 2017 meeting with two sergeants was not held in “good faith.” 8. Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that applicant’s cumulative trauma injury to his psyche is barred by the doctrine of “good faith personnel action” pursuant to section 3208.3, subdivision (h). (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (h) [“The burden of proof shall rest with the party asserting the issue.”].)

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's reliance on QME Dr. Mosby's opinion that the February 6, 2017 meeting was 55% of the cause of the psychiatric injury was not substantial medical evidence, and that the defendant failed to prove the good faith personnel defense.

  Official decision · page 25 →
• ADJ17943105 · 2026-07-20 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed two Petitions for Reconsideration, one on May 6, 2026 and one on June 8, 2026, apparently in response to two separate Orders Denying Petition for Change of Venue issued on April 9, 2026 and on May 7, 2026 by the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ). Applicant asserts in both Petitions that he disagrees with the decisions of the WCJ at the Santa Rosa District Office and that he wants his case transferred to the Oakland District Office. We have not received an answer from defendant. The PWCJ filed a Report and Recommendation (Report) recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration be dismissed, or in the alternative if treated as a Petition for Removal, it be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition and the contents of the PWCJ’s Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsiderations, treat the Petitions as ones for removal and deny both Petitions. BACKGROUND We will briefly review the relevant facts. Applicant sustained injury to his left ankle while employed by defendant as a production worker on June 7, 2023.

  The petitions challenged interlocutory orders denying change of venue, which are not final orders subject to reconsideration, and the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal. The petitions were therefore dismissed or denied accordingly.

  Official decision · page 1 →