Lodi 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.

• ADJ18236958 · 2026-06-22 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4A. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (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. (Id. at p. 1075.) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues.

  The April 8, 2026, minutes of hearing and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions were interlocutory and did not determine a substantive right or threshold issue, thus not final orders subject to reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ20554762 · 2026-06-15 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's order was not a final order, and the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15732786 · 2026-05-22 · Lodi District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8Next, the F&O fails to list materials to be reviewed by the QME by their exhibit letter designation and instead lists them by a different letter which creates confusion. Even with respect to the exhibits that contained over a thousand pages, the WCJ made no attempt to cull the relevant materials and merely states that the records that were not admitted were "not relevant, duplicative, overly burdensome, or their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value." The decision failed to explain the basis for admitting or excluding each potential exhibit into evidence, and just as significantly, the decision failed to provide a second analysis as to why each document would be provided to the QME, thereby depriving the parties of any meaningful review on the merits.

  The WCJ failed to adequately explain the basis for admitting or excluding each exhibit and which materials should be provided to the QME, depriving the parties of meaningful review. The F&O was rescinded and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11183362 · 2026-05-22 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) approved by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 20, 2025.

  The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because the record was undeveloped to evaluate the applicant's contentions about inadequate representation and terms of the compromise and release. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to consider the Petition as a Petition to Set Aside the OACR with a full record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20172102 · 2026-05-15 · Lodi District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, as explained above, the notice of hearing for November 19. 2025 did not identify the hearing as an in person hearing, so that a failure to appear in person cannot be the basis for the NIT. Moreover, the initial NIT in the MOH of November 19, 2025 indicated an intent to sanction "David Jane & Associates." The later Order for sanctions actually sanctioned both David Na and David Jane & Associates. The inclusion of David Na should have triggered a new notice of intent as it includes, for all intents and purposes, a separate party. As result, the order is null and void as the precipitating notice did not include both parties and therefore, they were not given notice and opportunity to be heard.

  The WCAB found that the notice of hearing did not clearly require in-person appearance or identify Mr. Na as required to appear, and that due process was not satisfied. The record did not demonstrate bad faith or support the sanctions imposed.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12317646 · 2026-05-04 · Lodi District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7nonindustrial apportionment of impairment for the lumbar spine, bilateral hips, heart, and hernia for the cumulative injury claim ending on May 10, 2019 and that the opinions of Drs. Amster and Schmitz on the issue of apportionment are not written in accordance with the requirements outlined in Escobedo and Gatten given their lack of specificity, lack of reasoning, and lack of supporting evidence.

  The Appeals Board found that defendant did not meet the burden of proving nonindustrial apportionment with substantial medical evidence, as the opinions of Drs. Amster and Schmitz lacked specificity, reasoning, and supporting evidence as required by Escobedo and Gatten.

  Official decision · page 7 →