Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

• Jurisdiction / venue2
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR2
• AOE/COE1
• Psyche AOE/COE1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 4
• Anaheim 1
• Fresno 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Oakland 1
• Oxnard 1
• Salinas 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 insurance carrier does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 7 for the defense
• 4 for the applicant

Counted over 10 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’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 insurance carrier is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ13474651 · 2024-11-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because applicant previously settled a case involving the same employers, similar injuries, and the same body parts.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in barring the claim by res judicata because the prior settlement did not clearly include the brain, nervous system related to psych or stress, or neurological problems aside from Parkinson's disease, and the applicant did not intend to settle those injuries.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9094160 · 2024-11-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.75500.5 because applicant did not play a single game with them in California, and thus, no personal jurisdiction exists over the Rapid City Thrillers Applicant further argues that no insurance coverage existed in California and that any dispute as to coverage should have gone to mandatory arbitration.

  The Rapid City Thrillers waived personal jurisdiction by making a general appearance and entering into a Compromise and Release; insurance coverage existed for California; liability under section 5500.5 was properly assigned to Rapid City Thrillers; applicant cannot proceed against Tulsa Fast Breakers as last year of injurious exposure liability falls on Rapid City Thrillers who settled.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ8671084 · 2024-05-31 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find merit in defendant's contention that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction over this dispute because its essence is the reasonable value of Dr. Nathan's services, not coding or the rectitude of defendant's EORs as suggested by the WCJ. We also conclude that it is appropriate to allow this matter to proceed to IBR. Accordingly, we will rescind the WCJ's decision and replace it with a decision reflecting the above conclusions.

  The WCAB found that the dispute was over the reasonable value of Dr. Nathan's services and thus subject to Independent Bill Review, not WCAB jurisdiction, rescinding the WCJ's decision.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11434587 · 2024-03-12 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6II. Applicant contends that the issue in this case is whether the WCJ appropriately decided that he could not rely on Dr. Mirza's medical reports when deciding the issues of applicant's permanent disability and further medical treatment because Dr. Mirza was not applicant's primary treating physician. The parties disagree on whether Dr. Mirza was in defendant's MPN and disagree as to whether Dr. Mirza is applicant's primary treating physician. As noted above, while the WCJ made no finding as to the issue of Dr. Mirza's reports, he determined that he could not rely on Dr. Mirza's medical reports as he believed that Dr. Mirza was not applicant's primary treating physician. (OOD, pp. 2-3.) However, whether Dr.

  The WCJ erred in rejecting Dr. Mirza's reports on the basis that he was not the primary treating physician. The Appeals Board held that the issue of primary treating physician is a payment issue and does not affect the reliability of the medical reports for permanent disability and further medical treatment. The Board found that Dr. Mirza's reports constitute substantial evidence and the record must be further developed.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ4406140 · 2023-07-13 · Los Angeles District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.96. The Doctrine of Laches The equitable doctrine of laches may apply in workers' compensation proceedings. (See, e.g., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Truck Ins. Exchange v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 394 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 685] (Kwok).) "The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay." (Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 351, 359-360, see also Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 77.) In addition, defendants must come to the determination with clean hands, and not be found to have participated in the delay. (See Kwok, supra.) In this instance, the sole basis for the WCJ's decision to reject applicant's attorneys' claims under sections 5813, 5800, 5814, and 5814.5 was that defendant successfully demonstrated the elements of laches. Upon review, we disagree with the WCJ's determination. With respect to delay, the WCJ found that the seventeen-year delay in requesting payment of the 5710 fees and bringing the Petition for Penalties was unreasonably long, and we do not

  The Appeals Board found that the defense of laches did not apply because defendant did not demonstrate prejudice or clean hands, and defendant's delay was partly due to its own inaction; therefore, the WCJ's laches finding was rescinded and penalties and fees were awarded accordingly.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ2024623 · 2022-05-24 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of May 21, 2019, the Presiding Workers' Compensation Judge ("PWCJ") found that applicant, while employed as a human resources/payroll employee by Cardinale Automotive Group on July 11, 1995 (ADJ4652674, insurer Republic Indemnity Company) and on January 15, 1996 (ADJ2024623, insurer Allianz Insurance Company), sustained industrial injury to her right knee per the Amended Findings and Award of February 2, 2005, and that in ADJ2024623, applicant sustained industrial injury to her left knee, psyche and complex regional pain syndrome ("CRPS"), causing permanent disability of 100% under the 1978 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities. In his Opinion on Decision, the PWCJ also found that "apportionment [of permanent disability] is 100% to the injury of January 5, 1996 in ADJ2024623MF based upon the opinion of Dr. Brose [pain specialist]," and that "[a]lthough the issue of [Labor Code section 3208.3(d)] is largely moot for permanent disability purposes...applicant did sustain a compensable psychiatric injury based [on her] credible testimony that she worked for over six months."1

  The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the diagnosis of CRPS and causation by the 01/05/96 injury, but rescinded and deferred the permanent disability finding in ADJ2024623 for further development due to insufficient evidence on permanent disability rating and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11710208 · 2022-04-07 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Petitioner contends that the Court erred in determining that Applicant was not a credible witness and thus the finding that she did not sustain injury AOE/COE.

  The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, which found the applicant's testimony not credible due to multiple inconsistencies and lack of physical findings supporting the injury, leading to denial of injury AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ18580857 · 2025-09-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on December 19, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  The petition was dismissed because the parties jointly requested to take the trial off calendar and withdraw the petition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13474651 · 2022-11-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9176715 · 2022-09-23 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on October 27, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

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

• ALLIANZ RESOLUTION MANAGEMENT
• ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY
• ALLIANZ GLOBAL CORPORATE AND SPECIALTY
• Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty
• ALLIANZ RESOLUTION RANCHO CORDOVA
• Allianz Global Corporation
• Allianz Insurance
• Allianz

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 insurance carrier is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.