Oxnard 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.

• ADJ19338918 · 2026-09-01 · Oxnard District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In the current case, Dr. McClintock-Greenberg utilized Table 5-12 of the AMA Guides to capture Applicant's impairment, placing Applicant in Class 4 (51% - 100% WPI). (see Ex. 6, QME November 20, 2025 Report, pg. 2). Individuals with a Vo2max of less than 15 mL/(kgmin) or a METS score of less than 4.3 meet the criteria to be placed in Class 4. Applicant's Vo2max reading from the CPET was 10.5 ml/min/kg and his METS score was 2.3 which qualifies him for Class 4. (see Ex. 6, QME November 20, 2025 Report, pg. 2.; Ex. 5, QME Vol. III Deposition pg. 25, line 7). Dr. McClintock-Greenberg explained that the CPET results showed significant loss of lung function, suggesting that Applicant “has rapidly progressive lung disease, and not merely end-stage lung disease.” (see Ex. 6, QME November 20, 2025 Report, pg. 2). He provided 100% WPI, based on Applicant’s “end-stage lung disease due to pulmonary fibrosis with rapid deterioration of [Applicant’s] lung function.” (see Ex. 6, QME November 20, 2025 Report, pg. 3). Dr. McClintock-Greenberg warned that with Applicant’s “rapid decline in lung function, [Applicant] will not be alive in one year if he does not receive a bilateral lung transplant.” (see Ex. 6, QME November 20, 2025 Report, pg. 3).

  The Appeals Board found that PQME Dr. Greenberg's reports and deposition testimony constitute substantial medical evidence supporting 100% permanent disability and no apportionment to non-industrial factors, based on objective test data and clinical foundation.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ1208836 · 2026-08-19 · Oxnard District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the Appeals Board’s attention that the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration served on July 17, 2026 contains a clerical error consisting of the omission of an Order rescinding the Order taking Cases Nos. ADJ3704380 and ADJ4088542 off calendar issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 4, 2026. We correct this clerical error by virtue of this decision without granting reconsideration, as such errors may be corrected without further proceedings at any time. (Lab. Code, § 5803; 8 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10986; see also 2 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, March 2019 Update) Supplemental Proceedings, § 23.74, p. 23-76.) We add the following Order to those issued in our July 17, 2026 decision.

  The Appeals Board corrected a clerical error in the prior decision without granting reconsideration, as allowed by law.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ4457963 · 2026-07-20 · Oxnard District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.92. The September 20, 2003 report of Julie Goalwin, Ph.D., was a legally obtained medical- legal report pursuant to section 4060 as it existed in 2003. 3. The ML-103 charges of Angoal Medical are subject to statutory increase and statutory interest under Labor Code sections 4622 and 5800, respectively. 4. Angoal Medical Collections is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee, having demonstrated liability for the charges.

  The Appeals Board found the September 20, 2003 report of Dr. Goalwin was legally obtained under section 4060 as it existed in 2003, based on the report's statements that it was requested by applicant's counsel and addressed contested medical issues, making the lien reimbursable with statutory increase and interest.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ1208836 · 2026-07-17 · Oxnard District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10The result for all lien claimants is the same, therefore, pursuant to Labor Code §4903.05(c)(3), as the “failure to file a signed declaration under this subdivision shall result in dismissal of the lien with prejudice by operation of law.” Lien claimant had until 7/3/2017, by 5:00 p.m. within which to file a declaration in compliance with Labor Code §4903.05(c). Lien claimant failed to do so. The lien claim was dismissed by operation of law. Pursuant to the above, it is Found that lien claimant, Dr. David Silver, failed to file a declaration pursuant to Labor Code §4903.05(c)(2) on or before 7/3/2017, resulting in dismissal of their lien filed on 3/28/2005 with prejudice by operation of law pursuant to Labor Code §4903.05(c)(3), rendering this court lacking jurisdiction to address their lien.

  Lien claimant failed to file the required declaration by the July 3, 2017 deadline, resulting in dismissal of the lien by operation of law.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ9928682 · 2026-07-15 · Oxnard District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, who sustained a subsequent cumulative industrial injury to her neck, shoulders, and elbows during the period from June 10, 2014 to April 21, 2015, met the 5% threshold and had a preexisting labor-disabling condition, but was not entitled to Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits because she did not demonstrate her overall permanent disability was 70% or greater. Applicant claims that she met the criteria for SIBTF eligibility, asserting that her overall permanent disability is 100% when combining her subsequent injury with her preexisting spinal, knee, and psychiatric conditions, and alternatively argues that development of the record is appropriate rather than an outright denial of benefits. We have received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending we deny reconsideration. We have considered the allegations in the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and the reasons discussed below, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the Findings and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The WCAB found that the applicant did not provide substantial medical evidence to establish preexisting labor-disabling permanent partial disability before the subsequent injury, as required for SIBTF eligibility under Labor Code section 4751. The medical opinions of QME Dr. Lopez and QME Dr. Ambrose were found to be based on conjecture and lacking objective, contemporaneous evidence of pre-injury work restrictions or functional limitations affecting earning capacity. The Compromise and Release and Stipulations with Request for Award did not constitute judicial findings of permanent disability or labor-disabling impairment. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the prior Findings and remanded for further proceedings to develop the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10896001 · 2026-06-18 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.14Here, a careful review of the medical reporting in this matter reveals that the apportionment opinions provided by both PQME Dr. Brooks and PQME Dr. Tirmizi fail to meet this rigorous evidentiary standard. The apportionment analysis proffered by PQME Dr. Brooks regarding applicant's thoracic and lumbar spine relies upon generalized factors rather than a precise medical explanation of causation. PQME Dr. Brooks assigned 75% nonindustrial apportionment to both spinal regions, attributing this allocation to applicant's mild degenerative MRI findings, his 16 years of previous employment in the construction industry, his participation in sports activities, and his limited 60-day tenure with defendant. PQME Dr. Brooks justified this determination by concluding that a single specific injury likely did not cause the total impairment and positing that applicant likely would have developed 75% of the impairment even absent the October 28, 2016 injury. This rationale is fundamentally speculative. 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. By relying on applicant's prior work history and sports activities

  The apportionment opinions by PQME Dr. Brooks and Dr. Tirmizi lacked sufficient medical explanation and were speculative, so no apportionment was found. The permanent disability was found to be 27%.

  Official decision · page 14 →