Goleta 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.

• ADJ11271941 · 2026-10-16 · Goleta District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Award of July 9, 2026 wherein it was found that while employed on May 10, 2027 as a houseman, applicant sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine and left hip causing permanent total (100%) disability. In finding permanent total disability, it was found that the standard AMA Guides impairment had been rebutted by vocational evidence proving that applicant’s injury rendered him unable to compete in the open labor market and unamenable to vocational rehabilitation. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant’s injury had caused permanent total disability, arguing that the WCJ should have relied upon the opinion of defense vocational expert Keith S. Wilkinson rather than the opinion of applicant’s vocational expert David Van Winkle.

  The WCJ found permanent total disability based on medical restrictions by Dr. Gjerdrum and vocational evidence from applicant's expert Van Winkle, which the WCJ found more persuasive than defense expert Wilkinson's opinion.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10648161 · 2026-10-05 · Goleta District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Maranian, supra, at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’…”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders”].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, although applicant contends that he seeks reconsideration of a findings and order, the PWCJ did not issue a decision on the merits. Thus, it appears that applicant is, in essence, seeking reconsideration of the Order issued by the PWCJ on June 22, 2026, wherein the PWCJ took the matter off calendar. The PWCJ’s decision solely to take a hearing off calendar resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The decision does not determine any substantive right

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11253479 · 2026-10-02 · Goleta District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) medical evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure “substantial justice in all cases.” (Kuykendall v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) In accordance with that mandate, we will grant reconsideration and defer the issues of permanent disability and apportionment pending further development of the medical record and pending further analysis and decision by the WCJ. Since we defer the issue of permanent disability on the basis outlined above, we do not reach the issue of the rating of the alleged headache impairment. The applicant may raise this issue in the further proceedings, and it should be analyzed in light of the authorities and reasoning explained in our Opinion of July 10, 2026, and in light of the further argument and evidence raised by the parties. We express no opinion on the ultimate resolution of any issue in this matter.

  The WCAB deferred permanent disability and apportionment issues for further medical clarification due to discrepancies in Dr. Newton's deposition testimony and incomplete medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16754017 · 2026-09-28 · Goleta District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8II. As stated in the WCJ’s Opinion on Decision: Based on the credibility of the applicant, with due regard for her demeanor as a witness, together with the medical reporting and deposition testimony of Scott Graham, M.D., in his capacity as a PQME, Applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring within the course of employment to her lumbar spine and cervical spine. All other body parts are deferred with jurisdiction reserved.

  Applicant’s credible testimony and QME Dr. Graham’s consistent mechanism of injury findings support injury AOE/COE despite defendant’s credibility challenges and lack of treatment.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ7316783 · 2026-09-24 · Goleta District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.181. the applicant, while employed during the period of January 1, 2005 through October 31, 2009 as an office manager, occupational group number 214, at Santa Barbara, California by Ehlen, Spiess & Haight, Inc., sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her left shoulder, neck, psyche and TMJ, right shoulder, and teeth. The issue of whether applicant sustained injury in the form of memory loss and headaches is deferred.

  The Board found substantial evidence supporting industrial injury to these body parts and affirmed the WCJ's finding of injury.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ17215880 · 2026-09-18 · Goleta District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 611 (Appeals Board en banc).) 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].) Rather, the report must disclose familiarity with the concepts of apportionment, describe in detail the exact nature of the apportionable disability, and set forth the basis for the opinion that factors other than the industrial injury at issue caused permanent disability. (Escobedo, at p.

  The QME's apportionment opinion was found not to be substantial evidence because it relied on probability and mathematical division without adequate medical or factual support, and the parties stipulated to compensability of the left wrist injury as a specific injury, not cumulative. Defendant did not meet the burden of proof for apportionment.

  Official decision · page 5 →