AOE/COE — was the injury industrial

What the Appeals Board did with this

Newest released decisions that turned on this issue. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF. Litigated tail — not a win rate, not a settlement value.

• ADJ16903801 · 2026-10-16 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Further, in Hinojosa, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the employee passengers were equally entitled to the required use exception outlined in Smith because all of the workers bear the burden and expense of providing the necessary vehicle for employment. (Hinojosa, supra, 8 Cal.3d at 162.) As a result, the commute differs from routine commute in that the manner in which the job was structured was dependent on use of vehicle to transport employees, as well as the essential trailer, throughout the workday. Because the job impliedly required use of a vehicle, the accident did arise out of and in the course of employment and is therefore compensable. Accordingly, we deny the Petitions for Reconsideration in Case Numbers ADJ16903801, ADJ16689751, ADJ16903295, ADJ16903722, ADJ16903753, ADJ16604010, ADJ16903824 and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration in ADJ17493829.

  The evidence showed that the nature of the work required employees to furnish their own transportation during the workday due to shifting work locations, which fits the required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule, making the injury compensable.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ21248340 · 2026-10-16 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 21, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant as a groundsman on June 25, 2025, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his lower back and right leg. The WCJ deferred and reserved all other issues. Defendant, in essence, contends that the evidence does not support applicant’s credibility and the finding of injury AOE/COE. Defendant further contends it has subsequently received sub rosa video evidence that further places applicant’s credibility in question. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations of defendant’s Petition and the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, as well as the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny reconsideration.

  The WCJ and WCAB found applicant credible based on consistent testimony and medical evidence from QME Dr. Lum, supported by objective findings and corroborating medical records, establishing injury AOE/COE to lower back and right leg on June 25, 2025.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18291836 · 2026-10-12 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6First, in workers’ compensation proceedings, when a WCJ’s credibility determinations are based on substantial evidence, they are “entitled to great weight because of the [WCJ’s] ‘opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and weigh their statements in connection with their manner on the stand...’ [Citation.]” (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; also see Meiner v. Ford Motor Co. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 127, 140-141.) However, “the Appeals Board is entitled to reject the [WCJ’s] findings on credibility matters if substantial evidence supports contrary findings...” (Garza, supra, 3 Cal.3d at 318-319.) In this case, it appears that the WCJ’s negative assessment of applicant’s credibility may need to be rescinded as it does not appear to be based on substantial evidence, and there is substantial evidence to support a contrary finding.

  The WCJ's negative credibility finding was challenged as unsupported by substantial evidence; applicant's testimony was unrebutted and unimpeached; the Appeals Board found substantial evidence to support a contrary finding and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9699542 · 2026-10-05 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.14not adequately establish the medical or legal basis for his conclusion that the evidence overcomes the statutory presumption. Accordingly, the record does not establish the absence of a reasonable link between the occupational carcinogens and decedent’s cancers as required under section 3212.1. Finally, we will find that the requisite concurrence of disability and knowledge pursuant to section 5412 occurred on May 13, 2016, the date upon which applicants submitted their application for adjudication of claim (death claim). The formal filing of this initial pleading, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, served to officially anchor the requisite awareness alongside the underlying disability, thereby establishing May 13, 2016 as the operative date of injury in this matter. Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the WCJ’s F&O and issue a new decision finding injury AOE/COE, that defendant failed to rebut the presumption pursuant to section 3212.1, and defer issues of temporary disability alleged from August 19, 2014 to June 20, 2015, death benefits, dependency, and CalPERS Special Death Benefit. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the March 1, 2021 Findings and Order is RESCINDED with the following SUBSTITUTED therefor:

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 because the medical evidence did not establish the absence of a reasonable link between occupational carcinogen exposure and the cancers. The Board rescinded the WCJ's prior finding and found injury AOE/COE to the cancers resulting in death.

  Official decision · page 14 →
• ADJ19100202 · 2026-10-05 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.17Following our independent review of the record occasioned by applicant’s Petition, we are persuaded applicant has established the necessary evidence to trigger the blood-borne infectious disease presumption of section 3212.8 and that defendant has failed to controvert the presumption. Accordingly, we grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the June 30, 2026 F&O, and substitute a new F&O that finds that applicant met her burden to show that the section 3212.8 blood-borne infectious disease presumption applies; that defendant failed to rebut the

  The Appeals Board found that the JC virus is carried in human blood and causes a disease meeting the statutory definition of blood-borne infectious disease under Labor Code section 3212.8; the defendant failed to rebut the presumption; therefore, the presumption applies and the injury is compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment.

  Official decision · page 17 →
• ADJ10895246 · 2026-10-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration to allow us time to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. 1 We now issue our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Lien claimant, Edwin Haronian, M.D., seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award 2 (JF&A) issued on July 6, 2022 by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant on September 1, 2016, October 1, 2016, and during the period from January 1, 2003 through October 17, 2016, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring during the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, arms, wrists, back, legs, ankle, foot or other orthopedic injuries. The WCJ further found that the reports of orthopedic panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), Elliott Schaffzin, M.D., dated December 30, 2019, and PQME, Joanne Halbrecht, M.D., dated October 26, 2019, and June 2, 2020, to be the “more reliable” reports, and that the reports of Dr. Haronian and Jonathan Kohan M.D. are not substantial medical evidence. Thereafter, the WCJ issued an order that they take nothing on their liens as well as an order dismissing both liens with prejudice.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the reports of Drs. Schaffzin and Halbrecht constitute substantial medical evidence, while the reports of Drs. Haronian and Kohan lack sufficient medical history, reasoning, and causation analysis to support injury AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8492544 · 2026-09-29 · Salinas District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Applicant claimed injury to her cervical spine, face consisting of the trigeminal nerve, headaches, sleep loss, hypertension, and diabetes while employed as a management analyst by defendant County of Monterey on April 30, 2008. Defendant admits injury to the cervical spine, face consisting of the trigeminal nerve, and headaches but disputes injury in the form of sleep loss and diabetes. The parties have selected Charles Martin, D.C., as the chiropractic Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Massoud Mahmoudi, D.O., Ph.D., as the QME in internal medicine, and A. K. Bhattacharyya, M.D., as the QME in neurology. On December 9, 2021, the parties proceeded to trial and framed for decision, in relevant part, the disputed body parts/systems of sleep loss, hypertension and diabetes. (Minutes of Hearing, dated December 9, 2021, at p. 3:3.) The parties also placed in issue permanent disability and “the applicability of the Combined Value Chart versus Additive Method for impairment.” (Id. at p. 3:6.) Neither party offered witness testimony, and the WCJ ordered the matter submitted for decision as of December 17, 2021. On February 2, 2022, the WCJ issued her F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant sustained her burden of establishing industrial injury in the form of hypertension, but not in the form of diabetes or sleep loss. (Finding of Fact No.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the medical evidence did not constitute substantial evidence to support industrial causation of diabetes and sleep loss, relying on inconsistencies in medical opinions and lack of persuasive medical explanation.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13408105 · 2026-09-29 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.64, 11.) There was no evidence or testimony that the incident occurred on September 15, 2019. The fact that applicant mistakenly wrote the September 15 date on her Application and may have repeated that incorrect date to her doctors, is immaterial. Based on the full evidentiary record, we find that the date of injury was September 10, 2019, and that applicant’s Application is amended according to proof to claim injury on that date. The WCJ made no findings regarding applicant’s September 10, 2019 claim of injury, finding instead that applicant failed to prove that she was injured on September 15, 2019. The F&O did not address the adequacy of the medical evidence supporting applicant’s claim. Applicant contends that on the date of injury, she fell backwards off a stool and injured her back and neck. The QME found that she was injured in that way and that the injury was AOE/COE. (Joint Exh. 1, at pp. 31, 33.) Applicant’s treating physician similarly determined that applicant’s injuries were

  Applicant met her burden of proof with substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE on September 10, 2019; defendant failed to disprove the claim; surveillance video evidence was given no weight due to lack of time stamp and contradictory testimony.

  Official decision · page 6 →