AIMS

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Fresno 7
• Oakland 5
• San Francisco 3
• Bakersfield 2
• Los Angeles 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Van Nuys 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 12 for the applicant
• 9 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 20 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ10759829 · 2025-12-17 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.19In this case, although the reports and deposition testimony of Dr. Previte attribute applicant's low back injury to a specific industrial injury that occurred in 1997, these opinions are unsupported by any detailed or cogent explanation of how or why the presumptive cumulative effect of wearing a duty belt for more than five years did not contribute in any way whatsoever to applicant's low back condition. Furthermore, Dr. Previte seems to hold the opinion that wearing a duty belt cannot constitute a medically probable cause of cumulative lumbar injury. This position is both unsubstantiated by explanation and based on a legally incorrect theory. As a matter of law, injury to the lumbar spine is presumed under prescribed circumstances. Any medical-legal evaluator who presumes the opposite to be true, without a detailed and cogent rebuttal, fails to meet the standards of substantial medical evidence set forth in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2007) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).

  Dr. Previte's opinion that the duty belt did not cause cumulative injury to the lumbar spine is not substantial medical evidence because it lacks detailed reasoning and is based on a legally incorrect theory, so the presumption of cumulative trauma causing the lumbar disability stands unrebutted.

  Official decision · page 19 →
• ADJ2574910 · 2025-09-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.63. The petition to reopen was not defective. Over 22 years after it was filed, and after the parties have conducted decades of discovery on the petition to reopen, defendant argues that the petition should be summarily dismissed because it was procedurally defective when it was filed. It does not appear that defendant is raising this argument in good faith. In workers' compensation proceedings, it is well-settled law that: (1) pleadings may be informal (Zurich Ins. Co., supra, 9 Cal. 3d at p. 852; Bland, supra, 3 Cal. 3d at pp. 328§ 334; Martino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 485, 491; Rivera v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 1452, 1456 [236 Cal. Rptr. 28, 52 Cal. Comp. Cases 141]; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Aprahamian) (1980) 109 Cal. App. 3d 148, 152§ 153 [167 Cal. Rptr. 57, 45 Cal. Comp. Cases 866]; Blanchard v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 53 Cal. App. 3d 590, 594§ 595 [126 Cal.

  The petition to reopen was properly filed and not defective; defendant's delay in raising the issue and conduct bar dismissal by laches or estoppel.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10774716 · 2025-09-02 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 2, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment in the form of a stroke and to the psyche; that applicant's injury has resulted in permanent total disability; and that defendant has not met its burden of proof with regard to non-industrial apportionment.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the QME's apportionment opinion was not substantial evidence because it apportioned to causation of injury (stroke) rather than causation of disability, and did not explain how risk factors caused the disability. Therefore, the award of 100% permanent total disability without apportionment was upheld.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15186514 · 2024-12-13 · Oakland District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.16As to the sufficiency of Dr. Jacks 4/18/2022 IME Report, as summarized herein above, I find it qualifies as substantial medical evidence regarding his diagnosis of Applicant's PTSD. He noted references in the medical records after the September 23, 2019 date listing diagnoses of PTSD. He reviewed several of the work-related traumatic events experienced by Applicant as a Firefighter with the Richmond Fire Department, and found a link between the September 2019 school shooting incident, and subsequent work traumas, and the development of Applicant's PTSD symptomology.

  The Board found Dr. Jacks' report to be thorough, based on extensive psychiatric consultation, psychological testing, and review of medical records, constituting substantial evidence supporting the PTSD diagnosis and industrial causation, while Dr. Keins' report was found unsubstantial due to lack of medical record review and untimely supplemental report.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ11704922 · 2024-08-29 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.62. Amending the Pleadings and the Statute of Limitations Next, defendant argues that applicant's amending the pleadings to conform with the proof violates the statute of limitations. We do not agree. The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and therefore, the burden of proof as to whether an application for adjudication is barred by the statute of limitations rests with defendant, (§ 5409, 5705; see City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 467, 471 [209 Cal. Rptr. 463, 50 Cal. Comp. Cases 53].) The limitations period for which a claim must be filed is the later of (1) one year from the date of injury, (2) one year from the last provision of disability payments per Labor Code sections 4650 et. seq., or (3) one year from the last provision of medical benefits. (Ibid.) Labor Code section 5709 states that "No informality in any proceeding or in the manner of taking testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, award, or rule made and filed as specified in this division..." (§ 5709.) Failure to comply with the rules as to details is not jurisdictional.

  The Board held that amending the pleadings to conform to proof does not violate the statute of limitations and that the burden of proof on limitations rests with defendant.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17029088 · 2024-03-18 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Here, there is no dispute that defendant's panel QME request listed an incorrect claim number. Because panel QME requests are available in litigated and non-litigated cases, a case number is not required to obtain a panel of QMEs. Rather, the issuance of a panel requires a claim number as a means for the parties and the Medical Unit to identify a claim and any prior panels that may have issued with respect to that claim.

  The panel obtained by defendant was invalid due to incorrect claim number and failure to timely serve, while the panel obtained by applicant was valid and applicable.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ2648786 · 2024-01-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Pursuant to Labor Code section 5300,1 the WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the "recovery of compensation, or concerning any right or liability arising out of or incidental thereto" of injuries that "arise out of and in the course" of employment," and that "[c]ompensation includes medical treatment, temporary disability indemnity, permanent disability indemnity, SJDB vouchers, and death benefits... In other words, the WCAB maintains exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to the California Constitution and section 5300 to adjudicate workers' compensation disputes." (Dennis v. State of California (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 28 [2020 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 1] (Appeals Board en banc).) The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered. (Lab. Code, § 5803.) The Appeals Board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, for good cause. (Lab. Code, § 5803.)

  The WCAB lacks authority to order disgorgement of funds by guardian ad litem and does not have jurisdiction over the alleged misappropriation issue.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14863932 · 2023-10-10 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant herein claims injury to her left foot as a result of long hours of standing/walking on a hard marble floor. She reported this problem to her supervisor who confirmed the reporting. She was allowed to wear tennis shoes instead of dress shoes to attempt to alleviate the problem.

  The court found injury AOE/COE based on the credible testimony and the controlling report of Dr. Kinchsular, despite defendant's objections to the QME report's timeliness.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10774716 · 2023-02-10 · San Francisco District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.14Temporary disability is not defined by statute but is considered a temporary impairment that will improve over time, once the injured worker has been given appropriate medical treatment to resolve his or her condition. Total Temporary Disability (TTD) payments are intended to be a temporary wage replacement during applicant's period of recovery. Once the injured worker has plateaued, and there is no expectation that his or her condition will improve with further medical treatment, the applicant is considered permanent and stationary and no longer entitled to TTD payments. (See Western Growers Ins. Co, v. WCAB (Austin) (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 227, 236 [58 Cal Comp Cases 323].) Applicant's claim that she is entitled to TTD from 12/30/2016 to 7/5/2017 as a result of her industrial injury is supported by the substantial medical evidence in this case, the exact amounts of which are to be adjusted by the parties with WCAB jurisdiction reserved in the event the parties are not able to resolve the issue amongst themselves, less 15% applicant attorney's fee of the TTD awarded.

  Applicant attorney is entitled to 15% attorney's fees of the temporary disability awarded.

  Official decision · page 14 →
• ADJ10011064 · 2022-12-30 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.17In applying the compulsory test above using the Rowland factors, we conclude that applicants' work here were voluntary. Preliminarily, we note that the parties here have not offered into evidence, nor have we found, a county ordinance that addresses the employment status of county inmates. As such, following the court in Pruitt, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d at pp. 552-553, and Parsons, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at pp. 638-639, above, we focus our analysis on the relationship between the inmates and the county.

  The Board found that the inmates were employees of the County of Fresno because they received extra visitation rights as consideration, which constituted sufficient consideration to support an employment relationship under existing case law.

  Official decision · page 17 →
• ADJ11573087 · 2022-08-25 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on October 14, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injury to her wrists, hands and fingers arising out of and in the course of her employment as a legal secretary by defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund, legally uninsured, during the period February 14, 2017 through February 14, 2018, caused permanent partial disability of 29%.

  The parties stipulated to a higher permanent partial disability rating of 37%, superseding the WCJ's original 29% rating, leading to remand for WCJ to consider the stipulation.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9920866 · 2021-12-24 · Fresno District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 21, 2019, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's injury did not arise out of or in the course of her employment (AOE/COE).

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's original decision lacked sufficient medical evidence to support the finding that the injury did not arise out of employment. The psychiatric QME's opinion was not substantial evidence due to misunderstanding of cumulative injury law. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to clarify events and obtain further medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• AIMS
• AIMS ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
• AIMS INSURANCE SERVICES

Is this your company and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.