Pomona 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.

• ADJ19966511 · 2026-10-16 · Pomona District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek review of the Findings and Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 30, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant claims to have sustained a cumulative injury from April 4, 2022 through October 8, 2024 while working as a Clerk Typist II for defendant to her neck, shoulders, knees, jaw, stomach, psyche/depression, and headaches/migraines; that applicant did not meet her burden to prove that she sustained an injury to her psyche/depression; and that further development of the record is necessary to address whether applicant sustained injury to her neck, shoulders, knees, headaches/migraines, jaw, and stomach. Applicant in her Petition for Reconsideration contends that the WCJ should have allowed further development of the record regarding injury to applicant’s psyche. Defendant in the Petition for Removal contends that the WCJ should not have allowed further development of the record regarding injury to applicant’s other body parts.

  The WCJ found applicant did not meet burden to prove injury to psyche/depression; the Appeals Board agreed and denied further development of the record on psyche injury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ21943588 · 2026-09-01 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Applicant also contends that because the notice of denial was defective, the defective notice invalidates the QME panel. As noted above, a denial notice is not required to contain a date of injury (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9812, subd. (g)) and the transposition of “0” and “3” was insufficient to render the notice invalid, especially given the other identifying information and the fact that no evidence was presented that there was any other outstanding claim between the parties. Furthermore, a decision issued by the Appeals Board may address a hybrid of both threshold and interlocutory issues. If a party challenges a hybrid decision, the petition seeking relief is treated as a petition for reconsideration because the decision resolves a threshold issue. Here, as noted above, the determination that the section 5402(b) presumption did not apply is a final order. However, when interlocutory orders are being challenged, we evaluate these issues under the removal standard. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].) We note that orders of the WCAB regarding development of the record are interlocutory in nature.

  The denial notice was not defective despite a typographical error, and the orthopedic QME panel requested by defendant was valid. The applicant failed to raise the issue properly or provide evidence to support a chiropractic panel request.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9182040 · 2026-08-24 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6billing pursuant to section 4622(c). (Cal Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10786(a).) In the event that the defendant does not timely request a hearing, the medical-legal provider may thereafter do so. (Id., subd. (b).) WCAB Rule 10786 provides specific conditions under which a defendant’s objection to the billing may be waived, and under what circumstances a provider’s bill will be deemed fully satisfied. (Id., subd. (e), (f), (g), & (h).) Rule 10786 does not require the filing of a lien as a precondition to seeking reimbursement of medical-legal expenses. Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, and substitute new Findings of Fact that WCAB Rule 10545 is not applicable to the current dispute and that Supreme Copy may pursue reimbursement of its claimed charges using the procedures described in WCAB Rule 10786. We will then return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We express no opinion as to the merits of Supreme Copy’s claim for reimbursement. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that reconsideration of the decision of May 27, 2026 is GRANTED.

  The WCAB found that WCAB Rule 10545 does not apply to Supreme Copy's medical-legal copy service charges and that Supreme Copy may pursue reimbursement via lien filing or dispute resolution under WCAB Rule 10786, thus granting reconsideration and rescinding the prior Findings and Order.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ4486822 · 2026-08-05 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on March 4, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant contends that the matter is ready to proceed to trial and that the WCJ failed to make a proper record in ordering the matter off calendar. We have received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, 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. 1 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 substantial 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

  The WCAB panel found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus removal was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9853688 · 2026-07-24 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal of Judge’s Findings and Order or in the Alternative Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of the petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration. I. Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code 1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19103568 · 2026-07-21 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) June 20, 2025 Order Denying Petition for Reassignment (Order), denying applicant’s request for automatic reassignment to another WCJ. Applicant contends if automatic reassignment is not granted she will be significantly prejudiced and will suffer irreparable harm, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. We did not receive an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the Report of the WCJ with respect thereto. 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,

  The WCAB panel found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant if removal was denied and determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition for removal.

  Official decision · page 1 →