Marina del Rey 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.

• ADJ10737010 · 2026-10-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.163) applicant is entitled to develop the record relative to the disputed body parts; and otherwise affirm the F&A; and we will return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the Findings and Award issued on December 28, 2021 is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, born [], while employed at Sherman Oaks, California by Polaris Property Management, sustained injury to the lumbar spine, right hip, right leg, and in the form of abdominal hernia arising out of and in the course of employment on April 17, 2016.

  The Board found that the medical record was incomplete and required further development for permanent disability and apportionment issues, deferring these issues for further medical reporting and supplementation.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ14962115 · 2026-10-12 · Marina del Rey District OfficeContribution / subrogationdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, United Wisconsin Insurance Company (United), seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on June 29, 2026, wherein the workers’ compensation arbitrator (WCA) found, in relevant part, that applicant claimed a cumulative injury arising out of and occurring during the course of employment (AOE/COE) during the period from June 1, 2017 through May 4, 2021 to the chest, respiratory system, left lung 1, and nervous system while employed by Rethink Human Capital MGMT/LCF/Shiftpixy as a food service worker; applicant elected against State National Insurance Company (State National) for said injury; applicant and State National settled the claim via a Compromise and Release Agreement (C&R) with an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issuing on June 21, 2023; State National filed a Petition for Contribution against United 2, which was granted; and United is responsible for contribution to State National for seventy-two percent (72%) of applicable costs and benefits paid by State National in this claim. The WCA then awarded contribution by United to State National

  The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence supporting the injury arising out of and in the course of employment and upheld the grant of the Petition for Contribution against United Wisconsin Insurance Company for 72% of costs and benefits paid by State National.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18095793 · 2026-10-12 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, essentially seeks to set-aside Orders Approving Compromise and Release (OACRs) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJs) on September 11, 2024, in various cases. In her Petition for Reconsideration filed in case numbers ADJ18095794, ADJ18095795, ADJ19812111, ADJ19812112, and ADJ19812113, applicant contends that she has no knowledge of case numbers ADJ19812111, ADJ19812112, or ADJ19812113. In her Petition for Reconsideration filed in case numbers ADJ18095793, ADJ18095796, ADJ18120474, ADJ18120475, ADJ18120476, ADJ18201932, ADJ18201962, ADJ19812113, ADJ19812115, ADJ19812116, ADJ19812117, ADJ19812118, ADJ19812119, applicant contends that ADJ18120474 and ADJ18120475 were denied claims, not included in the settlement. Applicant also contends that she has no knowledge of the following case numbers: ADJ19182113, ADJ19182115, ADJ19182116, ADJ19182117, ADJ19182118, ADJ19182119. We received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied.

  The petitions were dismissed as premature because the WCAB concluded that the matter should be returned to the trial level for proper consideration of the petitions as ones to set aside the OACRs, allowing applicant to present evidence and create a record for decision by the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9934566 · 2026-10-01 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4In the Opinion of this WCJ, the Medical Records of Dr. Brautbar and Dr. Zlotolow are not Substantial Medical Evidence. In the Opinion of this WCJ there needs to be further development of the record under Tyler and McClune. This WCJ would like to appoint a regular doctor under Labor Code Section §5701 to examine Applicant Petitioner and the medical reports to establish whether there was melanoma in Applicant Petitioner’s neck which would not be covered and would be exposed to the sun by Applicant’s Petitioner’s wearing a T-shirt. The California Supreme Court has long held that an employee need only show the proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or convincing. (McAllister supra). Here Applicant Petitioner has satisfied McAllister. Pursuant to the Medical Report of Dr. Hamada dated November 12, 2018, Applicant Petitioner sustained industrial injury to his back and neck.

  The WCAB found that the medical reports of Drs. Brautbar and Zlotolow were not substantial evidence and that further medical development was needed to determine if melanoma was industrially related. The WCAB rescinded the WCJ's Findings & Award and remanded for further proceedings including appointment of a regular doctor under Labor Code §5701.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18454068 · 2026-08-31 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.25 [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 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.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ8545914 · 2026-08-28 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1on June 3, 2024. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed by defendant as a Detention Services Officer during the period of October 1, 2009 to January 1, 2012, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment (AOE/COE) to her right wrist, right hand, left knee, heart, lungs, psyche, headaches, and gastrointestinal system, resulting in 100% permanent disability. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred and acted in excess of her powers by failing to apply apportionment correctly pursuant to Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664. 2 Furthermore, defendant 1F

  The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence was insufficient to apportion disability with reasonable medical probability due to intertwined injuries and deferred permanent disability and apportionment for further factual determination.

  Official decision · page 1 →