San Luis Obispo 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.

• ADJ19100202 · 2026-10-05 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.17Following our independent review of the record occasioned by applicant’s Petition, we are persuaded applicant has established the necessary evidence to trigger the blood-borne infectious disease presumption of section 3212.8 and that defendant has failed to controvert the presumption. Accordingly, we grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the June 30, 2026 F&O, and substitute a new F&O that finds that applicant met her burden to show that the section 3212.8 blood-borne infectious disease presumption applies; that defendant failed to rebut the

  The Appeals Board found that the JC virus is carried in human blood and causes a disease meeting the statutory definition of blood-borne infectious disease under Labor Code section 3212.8; the defendant failed to rebut the presumption; therefore, the presumption applies and the injury is compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment.

  Official decision · page 17 →
• ADJ22158882 · 2026-08-04 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of continuance issued on June 1, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which left discovery open. Defendant had requested the matter to proceed off calendar for further discovery. Thereafter, on June 23, 2026, the WCJ ordered the matter proceed off calendar per defendant’s request, and thus, defendant’s petition is now moot. In the future we encourage defendant to seek withdrawal of moot petitions. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for removal.

  The petition for removal is moot because the WCJ ordered the matter to proceed off calendar per defendant's request, making the petition unnecessary.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19727180 · 2026-07-20 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Apportionment is the process utilized to segregate permanent disability or the residuals caused by an industrial injury from those attributable to other industrial injuries or to nonindustrial factors, to allocate legal responsibility fairly. (Brodie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) Cal.4th 1313, 1321 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565]; Marsh v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 906, 911 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 787].) The mere fact that a medical report assigns approximate percentages of industrial and nonindustrial causation does not make the report reliable medical evidence by itself. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 927-928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687].) Instead, apportionment of permanent disability is “based on causation” and the “employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by

  PQME Dr. Hyman provided substantial medical evidence that the applicant's permanent disability was entirely industrial, refusing to apportion any part to nonindustrial risk factors such as smoking, obesity, or genetic predisposition, which were only risk factors and not direct causes of the permanent disability. Defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to establish apportionment.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ19727180 · 2025-12-19 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on October 23, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  The Appeals Board denied removal because the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11624608 · 2025-07-16 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration and/or Alternatively Removal of the decision issued on May 13, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition was withdrawn by petitioner and therefore dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11506199 · 2025-06-24 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 applicant's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →