Bakersfield 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.

• ADJ12944113 · 2026-09-28 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order 1 issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 12, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his right foot and right ankle and in the form of a Chronic Pain Syndrome but not his hip, while employed as a truck driver on June 21, 2019. The WCJ further found that as a result of the injury herein, applicant sustained “at least 40% permanent partial disability indemnity, after applicable adjustment and apportionment” and that “[f]urther development of the medical-legal record is needed to determine whether applicant is permanently totally disabled or has permanent partial disability in excess of 40%.” The WCJ ordered the parties to develop the record with medical-legal evaluation in the field of pain management by selection of an agreed medical evaluator (AME) or, if unable to do so, to request assignment of a panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME). Applicant contends that the WCJ should have relied on the current medical and vocational evidence to find him 100% permanently disabled, with no apportionment. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in ordering a new PQME.

  The WCJ found at least 40% permanent partial disability but deferred determination of permanent total disability pending further medical-legal evaluation in pain management. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further development of the record and deferred final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16035139 · 2026-09-21 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Rulings and Orders Admitting Evidence, Findings of Fact and Order (FF&O) issued by the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) on April 30, 2026, wherein it was found that decedent sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) in the form of cardiac arrest resulting in his death on March 31, 2022, while employed by defendant as farm worker. Defendant contends that the finding of AOE/COE was not based on substantial medical evidence. 10F

  The substantial medical evidence from PQME Dr. Simon, who opined with reasonable medical probability that the decedent's physical labor activities contributed to his cardiac arrest and death, was unrebutted and supported the finding of injury AOE/COE. Defendant's argument for medical certainty was rejected as the law requires only reasonable medical probability for causation.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10111444 · 2026-07-24 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the “Findings and Award” (F&A) issued on September 2, 2025, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was not entitled to an award of temporary disability because he was capable of working modified duty, but did not work. Applicant contends that defendant failed to offer modified work within applicant’s work restrictions. We have received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration or grant reconsideration to amend the findings of fact to find that defendant offered appropriate work to applicant. Thereafter, we issued an order granting the petition, pending further review of the entire record. Subsequently, the parties successfully participated in a voluntary mediation at the Appeals Board. On July 16, 2026, the parties advised that a proposed settlement by stipulation and order had been reached, and requested return of the matter to the trial level for review of the proposed settlement.

  The WCJ originally found the applicant was not entitled to temporary disability because he was capable of working modified duty but did not work; the applicant contended the defendant failed to offer modified work within restrictions; the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for settlement consideration without ruling on the merits.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9051887 · 2026-07-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on March 4, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that discovery is not yet complete on the issues of earnings and employment. 1 We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. 2 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

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis and the record review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8160195 · 2026-07-10 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Petitioner’s first argument is “The Appeals Board Acted without or in excess of its Powers by Awarding a Commutation.” Petition for Reconsideration 4/08/2026 p. lines 18-19. Petitioner correctly notes that it was not provided with the time to object to the quantification of the present value of the Life Pension as specified in the Minutes of Hearing of 2/06/2026. Petition for Reconsideration 4/08/2025 p. 5 line 20 to p. 6 line 12.

  The Award of Commutation was issued before the defendant had the opportunity to object to the DEU's calculation, violating due process, thus reconsideration was granted and the Award rescinded.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11141161 · 2026-07-08 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4The sole issue raised in this case is whether the WCJ properly determined that the good faith personnel action defense does not bar compensation for applicant’s psychiatric injury. More specifically, defendant challenges the WCJ’s determination that applicant’s psychiatric injury was not “substantially caused” by good faith personnel actions, as required by section 3208.3(h). (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(h).) Section 3208.3 governs claims for psychiatric injury. Section 3208.3 provides, in relevant part: In order to establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee shall demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury.

  The WCJ's findings on good faith personnel actions were unclear and the QME's medical opinion was insufficient to determine substantial causation; thus, the matter was remanded for further proceedings to clarify the actual events and obtain substantial medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →