Redding 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.

• ADJ7172447 · 2026-10-01 · Redding District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.7XIV, § 4 [The system of workers’ compensation “shall accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character; all of which matters are expressly declared to be the social public policy of this State.”].) Pursuant to sections 5701 and 5906, a WCJ or the Appeals Board may not leave undeveloped issues that, through the exercise of its specialized knowledge, recognizes as requiring further evidentiary development. (Kuykendall, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.) Following our independent review of the record, we believe that the medical-legal opinion of AME Dr. Mehtani mandating addition requires development to address our holdings in Vigil. AME Dr. Mehtani did not address how applicant’s permanent disabilities affected his ADLs and, if there is any overlap, does not discuss how they amplify the effect on the overlapping ADLs. 7

  The WCAB deferred the issue of combining or adding impairments for further evidentiary development to address the impact on activities of daily living (ADLs) as required by Vigil. The current record was incomplete, particularly regarding AME Dr. Mehtani's analysis.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ19686963 · 2026-09-21 · Redding District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.14Following our independent review of the record occasioned by applicant’s Petition, we are persuaded that the requirement for substantial evidence requires returning this case for further proceedings to develop the record on permanent disability and to amend the F&A including to award medical care. Accordingly, we grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the June 29, 2026 F&A, substitute the following findings, orders and awards, and return the case to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s July 17, 2026 Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the June 29, 2026 Findings Award and Orders issued by the PWCJ is RESCINDED and SUBSTITUTED as follows:

  The record lacks substantial evidence on permanent disability due to unclear medical work restrictions and conflicting vocational opinions; the issue is deferred for further development.

  Official decision · page 14 →
• ADJ21922892 · 2026-09-18 · Redding District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Given applicant’s allegations above, estoppel might be an issue. But, again, there are no minutes of hearing and summary of evidence here, and in fact, no evidence at all was admitted into the record for us to determine the issues of the statute of limitations and estoppel. Accordingly, we grant reconsideration and rescind the July 13, 2026 Order Dismissing Case and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the dismissal order due to lack of a complete record and potential estoppel issues raised by applicant's allegations regarding denial letters and claim filing timing.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11113222 · 2026-06-22 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 13, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which ordered further development of the record.

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20695668 · 2026-06-12 · Redding District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].)

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to fairly determine the applicant's average weekly wage or earning capacity, deferring the issue for further evidentiary development.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ17262790 · 2026-05-11 · Redding District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Finally, Ariana the applicant's petition alleges that the evidence does not justify the finding that widow Brandy the applicant was a total dependent because the 2017 tax return should not have been admitted and "was unquestionably fraudulent" (referring to petitioner's 1/6/2026 Supplemental Trial Brief, which points out that the return improperly took expense deductions from decedent's employment earnings). It appears that the WCJ relied upon both the tax return and testimony from multiple witnesses at trial that justifies her part of the 2017 joint tax return. Lynn Niekerasz, a

  The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that Brandy the applicant is a presumptive total dependent based on evidence including the 2017 tax return and testimony about her income and support from the decedent.

  Official decision · page 8 →