Sacramento 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.

• ADJ18572604 · 2026-06-30 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has timely filed a petition for removal from the Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE) issued on March 25, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).1 Within the MOH/SOE, the WCJ disallowed admission of multiple exhibits.

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10592929 · 2026-06-30 · Sacramento District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.742.5(43) + 9 + 8 + 8 + 4 + 2 = 74% (without pain add-on) or 42.5(43) + 13 + 9 + 8 + 4 + 2 = 79% (with pain add-on) Either scenario, with the pain add-on or without the pain add-on, meets the 70% threshold. We do note that applicant would not meet the 70% threshold if it is proven, as the WCJ concluded, that the 4% low back, 2% left leg, and 8% right upper extremity were not labor disabling. ((Ferguson, supra, p. 477; Escobedo v. Marshall, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 619 (Appeals Board en banc) [the previous disability or impairment must be labor disabling].) Accordingly, based on our analysis of the various SIBTF eligibility thresholds as discussed above, we return this matter to the trial level to further develop the record. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the August 27, 2024 Findings of Fact is AFFIRMED EXCEPT that it is AMENDED as follows:

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's original findings on eligibility were incomplete and required further medical opinion and record development to determine if the applicant met the 5% or 35% thresholds and the 70% combined disability threshold under section 4751.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ21537607 · 2026-06-29 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10In the absence of a record, we are unable to evaluate petitioner's contentions. Consequently, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration as premature and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We direct the parties and the WCJ to the en banc decision in Gaines for guidance with respect to approval of C&Rs that both WCJs and parties must follow. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the WCJ may treat the Petition as a petition to set aside the OACR, conduct further proceedings, and create a record as to whether there are grounds for setting aside the OACR. After the WCJ issues a decision, any aggrieved party may timely seek reconsideration.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as premature because the WCJ had not yet conducted a hearing or rescinded the OACR within the 15-day period after the petition was filed, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ19328573 · 2026-06-26 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13(Exhibit CC, Sean Robinson, M.D., March 4, 2025, PDF p. 64, emphasis added.) The statements provided do not explain how the identified factors caused applicant's

  The Appeals Board found that the medical opinion on apportionment by Dr. Sean Robinson was not substantial evidence due to lack of adequate explanation and reliance on speculation, thus rejecting apportionment and awarding permanent disability without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ12672135 · 2026-06-18 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 19, 2026, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment (AOE/COE), and ordered that applicant take nothing from his claim.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in applying LaTourette to deny compensability because the injury was caused by the fall impact with the elevator rail and floor, not the non-industrial disease causing the fall, and thus the injury is compensable under established case law.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15295325 · 2026-06-15 · Sacramento District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7However, we affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant was not precluded from vocational rehabilitation and that she was not completely shut out of the labor market for the reasons stated in the Report, which we quote below:

  The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was not precluded from vocational rehabilitation and was not completely shut out of the labor market, thus did not rebut the scheduled rating.

  Official decision · page 7 →