Benchmark Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 4
• Van Nuys 3
• Oakland 2
• Redding 2
• San Diego 2
• Anaheim 1
• Fresno 1
• Long Beach 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Santa Rosa 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.

• 10 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 19 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work.

Decisions

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

• ADJ14972494 · 2026-06-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the February 3, 2026 Findings of Fact, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant as a chief negotiator for the nurses' union, from February 4, 2005 to July 13, 2021, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her "internal" and eyes/vision, and claimed injury to various parts.

  The WCJ's finding of industrial injury to the eyes/vision is supported by substantial medical evidence including the ophthalmology QME Dr. Sami's opinion, the internal medicine AME Dr. Grodan's deferral to Dr. Sami, credible applicant testimony, and contemporaneous treating records. The Report on Reconsideration supplies the reasoning required under Labor Code section 5313, curing any deficiency in the original Opinion on Decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8827235 · 2022-07-11 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Upon very close scrutiny of the complex and voluminous complete medical record submitted before and after development of the record, with the trial briefs submitted, the undersigned found the reports of Dr. Mark Spoonamore, read with his deposition transcript, are the better reasoned and more persuasive.

  The WCJ found the reports of Dr. Spoonamore to be better reasoned, more persuasive, and substantial evidence supporting industrial causation of the cervical spine injury, while Dr. Silver's reports lacked persuasive and credible medical reasoning and were not substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14370402 · 2022-05-04 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2The issue submitted for decision was additional periods of temporary total disability: applicant claimed he continued to be temporarily totally disabled for the period from June 13, 2021, to the present an continuing, defendant contended applicant's condition was permanent and stationary as of June 17, 2021, or in the alternative, as of September 8, 2021. (MOH/SOE, p. 2.)

  The record lacked substantial evidence to determine if applicant continued to be temporarily totally disabled after September 8, 2021, and further medical evaluation was needed.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11389287 · 2021-03-30 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant's first argument is this WCJ erred in relying on the medical reporting of Dr. Shail Vyas as she contends that it is not substantial medical evidence. In support of this position, Applicant contends that there are four separate reasons that the medical report(s) do not constitute substantial evidence: (1) The job duties that Applicant testified to at trial were not taken into account by Dr. Vyas, (2) The medical report is internally inconsistent regarding Applicant's complaints of pain, (3) Applicant testified that she spent only 5 minutes with Dr. Vyas, and (4) The Dr. Vyas fails to provide an explanation for Applicant's diagnostic findings.

  The WCJ and WCAB found Dr. Vyas's medical opinion substantial and credible, rejecting Applicant's arguments against it, and found insufficient evidence of industrial causation due to short employment and lack of symptom development time.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11113222 · 2026-06-22 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 13, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which ordered further development of the record.

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12379666 · 2025-09-29 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on August 19, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  Applicant failed to state grounds for removal and did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar. The WCJ's order was proper and removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14935109 · 2024-11-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550.) WCAB Rule 10625(d), requires that "where a party receives notification that the service to one or more parties failed, the server shall re-serve the document on all intended recipients and execute a new proof of service, or provide a courtesy copy to the recipient on whom service failed, within a reasonable amount of time." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(d).) WCAB Rule 10832 requires, in pertinent part, that (a) The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including dismissing an application; and (b) that a Notice of Intention may be served by designated service in accordance with rule 10629. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.) Due process requires that a party be provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

  The dismissal order was rescinded due to defendant's failure to properly serve notices and petitions, violating due process and WCAB rules, and premature issuance of the dismissal order.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10578909 · 2024-08-22 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In his Report, the WCJ acknowledges that defendant was not properly served with the

  The Board found that the defendant was not properly served with the notice of intention to change venue, violating due process, and that the WCJ has broad jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues, including venue changes. The Board rescinded the venue change order and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ17732618 · 2024-04-15 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to the Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 5, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant on March 15, 2021, applicant sustained injury to her lumbar spine; and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability but that the opinions of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) were not substantial evidence on the issue of apportionment. The WCJ ordered that the parties return to the QME for further reporting on the issue of apportionment.

  The WCJ's Findings and Order contained a final order on injury, so the petition is treated as one for reconsideration; the WCJ rescinded the original order within the 15-day jurisdiction period, rendering the petition moot; therefore, the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15329303 · 2024-04-02 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  Petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15448165 · 2024-03-21 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3As the moving party, Applicant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, he should be relieved from the settlement agreement he entered into with Defendant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence"].) Applicant seeks to set aside the Order but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding his allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate Applicant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.

  The Petition was dismissed as premature because no evidence was admitted to support the Applicant's allegations, and due process requires a hearing with evidence before setting aside the settlement agreement.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ17729396 · 2024-01-29 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on November 14, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition 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.

• BENCHMARK INSURANCE COMPANY
• BENCHMARK ADMINISTRATORS
• Benchmark Insurance Company
• Benchmark Administrators
• BENCHMARK ADMINISTRATORS INCORPORATED
• Benchmark Insurance
• BENCHMARK INS. CO.
• BENCHMARK ONTARIO

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.