Application for adjudication of claim

What the Appeals Board did with this

Decisions of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that turned on this kind of filing. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF.

• ADJ16903801 · 2026-10-16 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Further, in Hinojosa, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the employee passengers were equally entitled to the required use exception outlined in Smith because all of the workers bear the burden and expense of providing the necessary vehicle for employment. (Hinojosa, supra, 8 Cal.3d at 162.) As a result, the commute differs from routine commute in that the manner in which the job was structured was dependent on use of vehicle to transport employees, as well as the essential trailer, throughout the workday. Because the job impliedly required use of a vehicle, the accident did arise out of and in the course of employment and is therefore compensable. Accordingly, we deny the Petitions for Reconsideration in Case Numbers ADJ16903801, ADJ16689751, ADJ16903295, ADJ16903722, ADJ16903753, ADJ16604010, ADJ16903824 and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration in ADJ17493829.

  The evidence showed that the nature of the work required employees to furnish their own transportation during the workday due to shifting work locations, which fits the required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule, making the injury compensable.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ21248340 · 2026-10-16 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 21, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant as a groundsman on June 25, 2025, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his lower back and right leg. The WCJ deferred and reserved all other issues. Defendant, in essence, contends that the evidence does not support applicant’s credibility and the finding of injury AOE/COE. Defendant further contends it has subsequently received sub rosa video evidence that further places applicant’s credibility in question. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations of defendant’s Petition and the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, as well as the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny reconsideration.

  The WCJ and WCAB found applicant credible based on consistent testimony and medical evidence from QME Dr. Lum, supported by objective findings and corroborating medical records, establishing injury AOE/COE to lower back and right leg on June 25, 2025.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18291836 · 2026-10-12 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6First, in workers’ compensation proceedings, when a WCJ’s credibility determinations are based on substantial evidence, they are “entitled to great weight because of the [WCJ’s] ‘opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and weigh their statements in connection with their manner on the stand...’ [Citation.]” (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; also see Meiner v. Ford Motor Co. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 127, 140-141.) However, “the Appeals Board is entitled to reject the [WCJ’s] findings on credibility matters if substantial evidence supports contrary findings...” (Garza, supra, 3 Cal.3d at 318-319.) In this case, it appears that the WCJ’s negative assessment of applicant’s credibility may need to be rescinded as it does not appear to be based on substantial evidence, and there is substantial evidence to support a contrary finding.

  The WCJ's negative credibility finding was challenged as unsupported by substantial evidence; applicant's testimony was unrebutted and unimpeached; the Appeals Board found substantial evidence to support a contrary finding and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9699542 · 2026-10-05 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.14not adequately establish the medical or legal basis for his conclusion that the evidence overcomes the statutory presumption. Accordingly, the record does not establish the absence of a reasonable link between the occupational carcinogens and decedent’s cancers as required under section 3212.1. Finally, we will find that the requisite concurrence of disability and knowledge pursuant to section 5412 occurred on May 13, 2016, the date upon which applicants submitted their application for adjudication of claim (death claim). The formal filing of this initial pleading, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, served to officially anchor the requisite awareness alongside the underlying disability, thereby establishing May 13, 2016 as the operative date of injury in this matter. Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the WCJ’s F&O and issue a new decision finding injury AOE/COE, that defendant failed to rebut the presumption pursuant to section 3212.1, and defer issues of temporary disability alleged from August 19, 2014 to June 20, 2015, death benefits, dependency, and CalPERS Special Death Benefit. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the March 1, 2021 Findings and Order is RESCINDED with the following SUBSTITUTED therefor:

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 because the medical evidence did not establish the absence of a reasonable link between occupational carcinogen exposure and the cancers. The Board rescinded the WCJ's prior finding and found injury AOE/COE to the cancers resulting in death.

  Official decision · page 14 →