San Jose 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.

• ADJ13408105 · 2026-09-29 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.64, 11.) There was no evidence or testimony that the incident occurred on September 15, 2019. The fact that applicant mistakenly wrote the September 15 date on her Application and may have repeated that incorrect date to her doctors, is immaterial. Based on the full evidentiary record, we find that the date of injury was September 10, 2019, and that applicant’s Application is amended according to proof to claim injury on that date. The WCJ made no findings regarding applicant’s September 10, 2019 claim of injury, finding instead that applicant failed to prove that she was injured on September 15, 2019. The F&O did not address the adequacy of the medical evidence supporting applicant’s claim. Applicant contends that on the date of injury, she fell backwards off a stool and injured her back and neck. The QME found that she was injured in that way and that the injury was AOE/COE. (Joint Exh. 1, at pp. 31, 33.) Applicant’s treating physician similarly determined that applicant’s injuries were

  Applicant met her burden of proof with substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE on September 10, 2019; defendant failed to disprove the claim; surveillance video evidence was given no weight due to lack of time stamp and contradictory testimony.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13684015 · 2026-09-14 · San Jose District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, according to our review of the record, we did not receive a Report by the WCJ. However, a notice of transmission was served by the district office on July 14, 2026, which is the same day as the transmission of the case to the Appeals Board on July 14, 2026. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1), and consequently they had actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on July 14, 2026. II. We now turn to the merits. Paragraph No. 3 of the C&R, states “[t]his agreement is limited to settlement of the body parts, conditions, or systems and for the dates of injury set forth in Paragraph No. 1 and further explained in Paragraph No. 9 despite any language to the contrary elsewhere in this document or any addendum.” (C&R, p. 5, para. 3; Petition, at p.

  The Appeals Board found that the C&R settlement did not specifically include the neck injury due to lack of specificity in the settlement language, and that the WCJ must independently review and determine adequacy of settlements. The defendant's broad release language argument was rejected because it conflicted with the requirement for specificity and adequacy review.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ18956084 · 2026-08-25 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ ordered applicant’s matter off calendar in error and failed to set various issues for hearing. We have received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification. We have received a request from applicant to file a supplemental petition, which we grant. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification 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 contained in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny disqualification. However, we will treat applicant’s petition as seeking removal of the May 14, 2026, order taking the matter off calendar. We will grant the petition for removal and as our Decision After Removal we will rescind the May 14, 2026 order taking the matter off calendar and order that this matter be set for mandatory settlement conference so that the WCJ may conduct a hearing upon the parties’ various discovery petitions.

  The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining the need violated due process, constituting irreparable harm, justifying removal. The petition for disqualification lacked sufficient factual basis and was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19265320 · 2026-07-30 · San Jose District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2On June 22, 2026, the parties agreed to, and filed a signed “Stipulation to Remand Matter to Trial Level for Further Proceedings.” In pertinent part, the Stipulation states that: The parties agree to remand this matter to trial level for further proceedings without withdrawing their positions or arguments. Based on the record, the parties present the following issue: whether defendant was obligated to file a Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute and concurrent Declaration of Readiness within 60 days of the provider’s objection as set forth by Labor Code § 4622. In addition, the WCJ shall address any other issue he deems appropriate.

  The matter was remanded to the WCJ for further proceedings to create a more complete record on this issue.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10715642 · 2026-07-22 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Defendant, Shimin Xu, has filed multiple petitions seeking both removal and disqualification. Defendant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon various allegations that the WCJ is biased. 1 Defendant seeks removal from a June 18, 2025 notice of hearing. Defendant argues that a WCJ may not place items on calendar sua sponte and that its petition to dismiss this matter should be summarily granted without a hearing. We have not received an answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification/Removal (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification and removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petitions for Removal and Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Reports. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ’s Report, we will dismiss the petition for disqualification and deny the petition for removal.

  The petitions lacked substantive verified allegations and failed to show grounds for disqualification or removal. The WCJ's setting of hearing on own motion was proper. No substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown to justify removal.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14802723 · 2026-06-29 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ ordered that applicant's petition to seal be heard together at trial amongst applicant's petition for 132a. The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10813). Thus, removal is proper in this case.

  The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 regarding the petition to seal records, justifying removal. The WCJ voluntarily recused, making disqualification moot. Removal was granted to address procedural errors before trial.

  Official decision · page 2 →