Anaheim 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.

• ADJ7393455 · 2026-10-14 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, as our decision after reconsideration, we will rescind the F&O and substitute a new F&O finding that the December 3, 2014 Order is final (Finding of Fact 5) and finding that there is no personal jurisdiction over the Chiefs in this case (Finding of Fact 6); and ordering correction of the clerical error in the December 3, 2014 Order Dismissing to identify Great Divide Insurance Company (Great Divide) as the insurer for the Chiefs (see Toccalino v. Worker’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 543, 558 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 145] [clerical errors may be corrected without further proceedings at any time]) (Order a) and that further litigation by applicant against the Chiefs and Great Divide as their insurance carrier is barred by res judicata (Order b). Finally, in the interest of clarity, we will add findings to conform to the parties’ stipulations at trial with respect to insurance coverage (Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4).

  The December 3, 2014 dismissal order with prejudice is final and bars further litigation against the Chiefs and their insurer by res judicata; the WCAB found no personal jurisdiction over the Chiefs due to the dismissal; the applicant's attempts to rejoin the Chiefs were barred by res judicata and timely objections by the Chiefs preserved their rights.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• 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 →
• ADJ11249966 · 2026-10-02 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8pursuant to section 4622(a)(1), defendant is automatically liable for payment of penalties and interest. Moreover, if a defendant does not pay a proper medical-legal invoice in full or fails to provide an EOR within the 60-day window, then a defendant has waived all objections to the medical-legal provider’s billing except compliance with sections 4620 and 4621. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10786(e); see Colamonico, supra.) Consequently, even if defendant here had successfully showed that section 5307.9 applied, it had already waived this defense when it failed to comply with section 4622(a)(1). Accordingly, we rescind the F&O and substitute new Findings that find that section 5307.9 does not apply in this matter; defendant failed to issue EOBs or any payment to cost petitioner within 60 days; cost petitioner met its burden under sections 4620, 4621, and 4622; and defendant is liable for payment of penalties and interest under section 4622(a)(1). We defer the issue of attorney’s fees and costs and return the matter to the WCJ so that the WCJ may consider the issue in the first instance. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the January 20, 2022 Findings of Fact is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:

  The WCAB found that Labor Code section 5307.9 does not apply, defendant failed to issue Explanations of Benefits or payment within 60 days, cost petitioner met burden under sections 4620, 4621, and 4622, and defendant is liable for penalties and interest under section 4622(a)(1).

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ18995801 · 2026-09-10 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, as explained below, we agree with defendant that the Order to produce documents caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm because defendant was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In addition, without a record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ appropriately issued the Order. Thus, we will rescind the decision. Parties to a workers’ compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is “one of ‘the rudiments of fair play’ assured to every litigant....” (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal.

  The WCAB found that the defendant was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Order to Produce was issued, causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, and that the WCJ's decision lacked a record to determine good cause for the order, thus requiring rescission and return for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ21618015 · 2026-09-08 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Kleemann 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, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner. The WCJ ordered that this matter proceed to a mandatory settlement conference, which is required prior to setting any of the issues in applicant’s case for trial. No trial on the merits has occurred in this proceeding. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp.

  The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the continuance order, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; thus removal was denied.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ19102087 · 2026-08-25 · Anaheim District OfficeDeath benefitsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3This matter involves a claim for death benefits by the widow of an injured worker who sustained a sudden cardiac arrest and died on November 10, 2023 while at the place and during the period of his employment. (F&O, Opinion on Decision, p. 1.) While the QME in this case states that stress from decedent’s employment contributed to the cause of his sudden cardiac arrest and death, there is no claim for psychiatric injury. (See Applications for Adjudication of Claim- Death, April 8, 2024 and April 29, 2024.) “Stress is not a diagnosis, disease, or syndrome. It is a nonspecific set of emotions or physical symptoms that may or may not be associated with a disease or syndrome. Whether or not stress contributes to a disease or syndrome depends on the vulnerability of the individual, the intensity, duration, and meaning of the stress; and the nature and availability of modifying resources.” (American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition at p. 1055.) However, stress may cause a physical injury or a psychiatric injury or both.

  The WCJ and Board found substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Fischer that stress from decedent’s employment contributed to his sudden cardiac arrest and death, meeting the standard that employment need only be a contributing cause of death for compensability under Labor Code and case law. Defendant’s challenges to the medical evidence and applicant’s credibility were rejected.

  Official decision · page 3 →