San Francisco 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.

• ADJ292246 · 2026-07-01 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Under California's workers' compensation system, questions relating to the medical necessity of a treatment requested by a physician are decided through a compulsory UR process. Section 4610 requires that employers establish a UR process and once a treating physician submits an RFA to an employer, the employer must either approve the treatment request or dispute the treatment request and submit the matter for review by a UR physician who then must determine, based on "medical necessity," whether to approve, modify, or deny the requested treatment. (§ 4610; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sandhagen) (2008) 44 Cal.4th 230, 241.)

  The WCAB concluded that the request for a motorized wheelchair is a new and different treatment subject to utilization review, so the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to decide its medical necessity at this time.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17258260 · 2026-06-22 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration and/or removal of the "Findings of Fact and Orders" (F&O) issued on March 18, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that additional qualified medical evaluator (QME) panels in psychology and internal medicine were warranted and ordered the Medical Unit to issue additional panels accordingly.

  The WCJ found good cause for additional panels in psychology and rheumatology, which the Appeals Board upheld, denying defendant's petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8387927 · 2026-06-19 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR) issued on March 3, 2026, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), wherein we affirmed the May 24, 2022 Findings of Fact & Award finding that there was no evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the allergic rhinitis, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dermatitis (in the form of a rash).

  Applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the listed conditions prior to the November 4, 2010 injury, including new medical reports which did not cure the evidentiary defect.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14589712 · 2026-06-12 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Based upon the totality of the evidence, we believe that applicant satisfied the requirements under Vigil for rebuttal of the CVC method of rating with respect to the bilateral knees.

  Applicant satisfied the requirements under Vigil for rebuttal of the combined values chart method for the bilateral knees, supported by Dr. Stoller's detailed impairment ratings and ADL limitations.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ19403295 · 2026-06-08 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, the record is not fully developed and the WCJ's decision was not based on substantial evidence. We grant KForce's Petition as one seeking reconsideration, rescind the March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The WCJ's March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact on date of injury and statute of limitations were rescinded due to insufficient substantial evidence and incomplete record development.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ14744840 · 2026-06-04 · San Francisco District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.17We are therefore persuaded that the record requires further development on the issue of whether applicant's combined preexisting and subsequent permanent disability equals 70% or more.

  The record required further development to determine if combined disability met the 70% threshold.

  Official decision · page 17 →