Broadspire

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 14
• Los Angeles 9
• San Diego 6
• Anaheim 5
• Bakersfield 5
• Riverside 5
• Marina del Rey 4
• Oakland 4
• Pomona 4
• San Francisco 4
• Fresno 3
• Sacramento 3

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.

• 38 for the defense
• 32 for the applicant
• 9 returned for more record

Counted over 76 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.

• ADJ14589712 · 2026-06-12 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based upon our review of Dr. Stoller's reports, including the medical legal report dated December 12, 2024, Dr. Stoller reviewed medical records, took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. As such, we find that Dr. Stoller's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine. As explained by Dr. Stoller, applicant sustained a 6% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE category II due to loss of range of motion and pain as well as the injury's effects on applicant's activities and daily living (ADLs) including issues with standing and sitting. (Joint Exhibit 104 p. 27.) Applicant noted that he can tolerate sitting for sixty (60) minutes, standing and walking for two (2) hours, and lifting up to thirty (30) pounds. (Id. at p. 2.) Applicant also noted significant pain when walking up and down stairs and driving more than two hours. (Ibid.) We note that in his report dated August 1, 2025, Dr. Stoller confirmed that causation was due to the cumulative injury ending on October 25, 2018. (Joint Exhibit 105.)

  Dr. Stoller's reports were found to constitute substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine, including detailed examination, history, and explanation of causation.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ7940908 · 2026-06-01 · San Diego District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Additionally, the WCJ weighed the witnesses' testimony and found them to be credible in their assertions. Realistically, there was not much differentiation between the testimony of the employer from Applicant's testimony. We accord this credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while testifying at trial. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Thus, applicant failed to prove either a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of section 132a, or an actual violation of that section by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to his termination or disciplinary actions.

  Applicant failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a or an actual violation by a preponderance of the evidence regarding his termination or disciplinary actions. The WCJ found the employer's witnesses credible and the disciplinary actions consistent with company policy, not discriminatory.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ11754124 · 2026-05-26 · Pomona District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on February 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant's internal injury complaints are barred by Labor Code1 section 5410 because applicant failed to obtain substantial medical evidence establishing internal injury within five years from his date of injury.

  The WCJ's finding that applicant's internal injury complaints were barred by Labor Code section 5410 was unsupported due to lack of substantial medical evidence; applicant timely filed petition to reopen; record development needed; thus, reconsideration granted and matter remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17880601 · 2026-02-26 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, defendant provided no such evidence. Defendant contends that applicant's failure to present substantial medical evidence of a psyche claim effectively rebuts the presumption of compensability under section 5402. (Petition, p. 2.) This is not the standard. Additionally, to the extent that defendant conflates compensability with the nature and extent of injury, we remind defendant that the issue of nature and extent of injury has yet to be determined. The medical reporting and deposition testimony of Dr. Davis, however, does establish industrial causation.

  The defendant failed to provide evidence discovered after the 90-day period to rebut the presumption of compensability under section 5402, and the medical evidence established industrial causation.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10222709 · 2026-01-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2FACTUAL BACKGROUND On November 24, 2020, the matter proceeded to trial in ADJ10222709. In that case, applicant claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE while employed by UCLA as a hospital lab technician, during the period May 1, 2014 through November 11, 2015, to her bilateral upper extremities, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral arms, neck, digestive system (stomach), fingers, both shoulders, elbows, internal, dental, nervous system, pulmonary and vision. The issues raised for determination were stated as follows: 1. Injury arising out of and in the course of employment. 2. Applicant attorney's motion to strike PQME Klassen is vigorously opposed by both defendants, including possible deposition unavailability. 3. Applicant's request for an additional panel in internal medicine is opposed by defendants. 4. Applicant's attorney objects to trial at this time and seeks further discovery.

  The WCJ failed to make findings on injury AOE/COE and improperly based denial solely on applicant's lack of credibility; the Appeals Board requires medical evidence for injury determination and remands for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ9961038 · 2025-11-12 · Riverside District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award and Order issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 19, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on February 5, 2015 by defendant, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment (AOE/COE) to the left shoulder, left knee, left ankle, feet, psyche, back, hands, arms, "CRPS", right wrist, head, neck left eye, jaw, face, chest, legs, "weight gain and loss", gastro- intestinal, intestinal, and thyroid. In Findings of Fact two (2) and three (3), the WCJ stated that the parties declined to have the court address issues of compensability, parts of the body, and apportionment, and limited the court's issues to whether applicant is 100% permanently totally disabled, and attorney's fees. The WCJ thereafter made a finding that "assuming the case is compensable because of said injury, applicant is permanently totally disabled," and appears to have conditionally awarded applicant permanent disability of 100%, as well as attorney's fees.

  The WCJ conditionally awarded permanent total disability and attorney's fees, but the WCAB rescinded that decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on a Compromise and Release.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10963100 · 2025-10-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to the July 8, 2025 Joint Findings and Order issued by a workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found, in pertinent part, that (1) applicant, while employed by defendant on June 17, 2017, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his right ankle in case number ADJ10955805; (2) applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists and knees in ADJ1096310 [date of injury not identified]; (3) applicant properly obtained a qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in pain management; (4) the reporting of Guodong Li, M.D., is admissible as the PQME in pain management; and (5) Dr. Li shall be allowed to finalize the evaluation of the applicant. The WCJ ordered that Dr. Li be allowed complete his evaluation of applicant, with all medical records to be forwarded to him in the next 15 days, and that his original reports shall remain in evidence. All other issues, including sanctions and costs were ordered off calendar, with the parties to meet and confer as to same within the next 15 days.

  The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his right ankle on June 17, 2017, which was affirmed by the Appeals Board.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10266237 · 2025-08-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6II. We first address the sufficiency of the medical-legal evidence. The WCJ has determined that applicant sustained two industrial injuries, a specific injury of September 10, 2015, and a cumulative injury from September 10, 2005 to September 10, 2015. In both instances, the WCJ has based his findings on applicant's credible testimony and the reporting of AME Dr. Bertoldi. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 2.) The burden of proving industrial injury rests with the applicant. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705; LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644, 650 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253].) Where the question of industrial causation is beyond the bounds of ordinary knowledge, proof in the form of expert medical evidence is required. (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Willson) (1924) 195 Cal.174, 184 [11 IAC 277]; Ins. Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kemp) (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 911 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913].) In order to constitute substantial evidence on industrial causation, a reporting physician must state his or her opinion in terms of reasonable medical probability. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660]; LaTourette, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 650.) In his report of January 20, 2021,3 Dr.

  The WCJ and WCAB found the AME Dr. Bertoldi's report to be substantial medical evidence based on reasonable medical probability, supported by review of treating neurosurgeon and pathologist opinions, and applicant's credible testimony.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8102669 · 2025-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Based on the foregoing, we concur with the WCJ's determination that Drs. Hirsch and Fink have identified multiple preexisting nonindustrial factors as causative of applicant's current permanent disability. However, because neither the regular physician nor the QME offers an explanation of how they identified the extent to which each of those factors contributed to present permanent disability, expressed as an approximate percentage, the apportionment analysis is incomplete and cannot be adopted. (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621; Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 647 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647] [Appeals Board may not rely on an apportionment opinion expressed as a mere legal conclusion].)

  The WCAB found that the apportionment analysis by Drs. Hirsch and Fink was incomplete and lacked explanation on how percentages were assigned, thus not substantial evidence to support apportionment.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ16741292 · 2025-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Defendant contends that applicant did not sustain an amputation hence is not eligible for the exception to the 104 week rule because the portion of the finger that was amputated was re- attached. I disagree with defendant's position.

  The applicant sustained an amputation of part of his left index finger despite replantation surgery, which qualifies for the extended temporary disability benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c). Medical evidence from Dr. Chen and Dr. Jamasbi supports that the applicant is totally temporarily disabled and entitled to benefits.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ9961038 · 2024-12-02 · Riverside District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award and Order issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 19, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on February 5, 2025 by defendant, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment (AOE/COE) to the left shoulder, left knee, left ankle, feet, psyche, back, hands, arms, "CRPS", right wrist, head, neck left eye, jaw, face, chest, legs, "weight gain and loss", gastro- intestinal, intestinal, and thyroid. In Findings of Fact two (2) and three (3), the WCJ stated that the parties declined to have the court address issues of compensability, parts of the body, and apportionment, and limited the court's issues to whether applicant is 100% permanently totally disabled, and attorney's fees. The WCJ thereafter made a finding that "assuming the case is compensable because of said injury, applicant is permanently totally disabled," and appears to have conditionally awarded applicant permanent disability of 100%, as well as attorney's fees.

  The WCJ awarded 100% permanent total disability assuming compensability, but the Appeals Board found no stipulation or finding of industrial causation for the claimed injuries, and that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the award. The Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further development and review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ756255 · 2024-09-24 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3While the WCA issued the Report on December 22, 2021, filing of the arbitration file in EAMS was not completed as required by WCAB Rule 10995, as the record does not include all exhibits proffered, including, but not limited to, the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision of November 11, 2021 of the WCA for which both parties seek reconsideration.

  The record was incomplete, lacking necessary exhibits and an adequate description and organization of evidence, preventing meaningful review by the Board.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• BROADSPIRE
• Broadspire
• BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.
• BROADSPIRE BREA
• Broadspire, A Crawford Company
• BROADSPIRE, A CRAWFORD COMPANY
• BROADSPIRE, a Crawford Company
• BROADSPIRE SERVICES
• Broadspire 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.