California 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

• Van Nuys 5
• Santa Rosa 4
• Salinas 3
• Anaheim 2
• Marina del Rey 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Oakland and Sacramento 1
• Oxnard 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Diego 1
• San Jose 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.

• 17 for the defense
• 13 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 34 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.

• ADJ10219413 · 2026-05-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on September 9, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his thoracic spine, right shoulder, chest/ribs, right-upper extremity, and in the form of peripheral vascular disease/deep vein thrombosis, while employed as a log chocker on October 5, 2015. The WCJ further found that the injury caused permanent disability of 61%, after apportionment.

  The WCJ found permanent disability of 61% after apportionment but did not find permanent total disability; applicant argued for total disability relying on vocational expert opinion, but the Appeals Board did not rule on the merits and returned the matter for settlement consideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10219413 · 2025-12-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 9, 2025 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his thoracic spine, right shoulder, chest/ribs, right-upper extremity, and in the form of peripheral vascular disease/deep vein thrombosis, while employed as a log chocker on October 5, 2015. The WCJ further found that the injury caused permanent disability of 61%, after apportionment.

  The WCAB found the record incomplete and lacking substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision on permanent disability and apportionment, warranting further development and reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3547384 · 2025-07-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813remanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Trial on the issue of division of attorney's fees was initially held on October 26, 2023. The issue of compliance with Labor Code § 4906 (e) was bifurcated and was the sole [issue] heard at that time. On January 16, 2024 findings of fact issued in which it was found that Attorney Ronald Ehrman filed a disclosure statement with the appeals board on May 20, 1998 which substantially complied with the requirements of the 1998 version of Labor Code § 4906 (e), that Attorney Ronald Nolan filed a document entitled "DISCLOSURE STATEMENT" with the appeals board on October 29, 2018 which did not comply with the requirements of the 2018 version of Labor Code § 4906 (e), and that Attorney Ronald Nolan filed a disclosure statement with the appeals board on October 16, 2023 (approximately 2 1/2 years after the compromise and release in this matter was approved) which complied with the requirements of the 2018 version of Labor Code § 4906 (e).

  The WCJ found that the present counsel Ronald Nolan did not timely file the required disclosure statement under Labor Code section 4906(e), precluding him from receiving attorney fees under Labor Code section 4906(i). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review this issue and deferred the final decision.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10841453 · 2024-05-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision and substitute it with a new Findings and Order, that strikes Findings of Fact number two (2)1 and admits applicant's Exhibit 1 (Medical report from Gayle Windman, Ph.D., dated March 28, 2022), which the WCJ discusses in the Report. We will otherwise restate the WCJ's findings and order.

  The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial medical evidence supporting the claim that dizziness and psychological symptoms arose out of and in the course of employment, relying on AME opinions and rejecting the applicant's expert who did not review medical records.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13220426 · 2023-03-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4III. DISCUSSION The appeal filed by applicant essentially questions the substantially of the medical findings of Dr. Peter Alexakis, the PQME. These defense Exhibits, A, B and C, were found by the court to be accurate, well-reasoned and clear. They were held to be substantial medical evidence and better evidence that the reports of the treating physicians. Applicant argues that the PQME's failure to find injury to the applicant's neck and back are incorrect and speculative. They argue that the reports do not properly review all of the applicant's medical records and that the records, specifically the Facey medical records, are not offered into evidence. Applicant asserts that the PQME in the report dated 8/15/2020 indicates that he reviewed a Rehab 90 job analysis stating that applicant lifted up to 10 lbs. They refute this by asserting that the applicant testified to lifting objects up to 50 lbs. They argue that the PQME may have reviewed an unauthenticated job analysis. None of the arguments made by applicant on appeal were raised at the time of trial.

  The court found the PQME reports to be accurate, well-reasoned, and substantial medical evidence, giving them greater weight than treating physicians' reports. The applicant's arguments against the PQME's findings were not raised at trial and were speculative or waived.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ9900622 · 2022-07-08 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The parties submitted a total of 39 exhibits which included multiple medical reports, 4 Cross- examination transcripts, 10 vocational expert reports, and medical reporting from 6 different specialties. The Court reviewed each page of the evidence and outlined the multiple findings from the various doctors in describing the basis for the finding that the applicant was entitled to a finding of 100% total permanent disability.

  The WCJ found applicant 100% totally permanently disabled based on the persuasive vocational expert opinion that applicant was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and incapable of employment, and the combined medical evidence rated at 98% disability. The WCAB adopted this reasoning and found no error.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ3543979 · 2021-03-18 · Salinas District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Hartnell Packing Inc., by and through its insurer, Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company/Liberty Mutual, seeks reconsideration of the December 28, 2020 Findings, Award and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained five industrial injuries, specific and cumulative, to his bilateral shoulders, back, psyche, heart/cardiovascular, sleep and internal while employed as a dock supervisor on July 5, 1996, December 1, 2001, and cumulatively over the periods ending December 31, 2002, October 14, 2003, and June 9, 2005, resulting in permanent total disability. The WCJ determined that though applicant sustained five separate injuries, he was entitled to a single joint award of permanent total disability in the absence of substantial medical evidence to apportion disability between the dates of injury.

  Defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to apportion disability among multiple industrial injuries, and substantial evidence supports applicant's 100% permanent total disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11438289 · 2021-02-17 · Salinas District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Applicant sustained injury AOE/COE. Applicant did not materially deviate from his work errand at the time of his motor vehicle accident.

  Applicant did not materially deviate from his work errand at the time of the motor vehicle accident and the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, supported by credible testimony and legal precedent.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ3905924 · 2014-07-24 · Oxnard District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.111 We previously granted defendant's petition for reconsideration of the March 6, 2014 Findings

  The WCJ found and the WCAB affirmed that nurse case manager services are a form of medical treatment under Labor Code section 4600, and defendant's unilateral termination was not supported by substantial medical evidence. The use of expedited hearing was proper under Labor Code section 5502(b)(1).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7232076 · 2011-11-04QME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.115 On September 26, 2011, we issued an en banc decision in this case, resolving questions

  The Board clarified the timeline for seeking agreement on an AME and requesting a QME panel, extending the period by five calendar days when the first written AME proposal is mailed within California, and held that the time period starts the day after the first written proposal and includes the last day.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7232076 · 2011-09-26QME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.148 supra, 212 Cal. at pp. 594-595.) The WCJ applied the rule correctly to determine that May 6, 2010 -- 9 the 16th day after the first written AME proposal -- was the first day a panel request was permissible. 10 Applicant's panel QME request was made on the 11th day after defendant's April 20, 2010 first written

  The Appeals Board held that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code section 4062.2(b) is extended by five calendar days if the first written AME proposal is made by mail within California, making the QME panel requests premature and invalid.

  Official decision · page 14 →
• 2004-eb2 · 2004-07-27Liensdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.117 the Court held that the Employment Development Department's (EDD's) lien is an obligation to

  The Court of Appeal held that the EDD's lien is an obligation to the state and thus not a "covered claim" that CIGA must pay, leading the Appeals Board to rescind its prior decision and affirm that CIGA is not required to pay EDD.

  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.

• CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY
• California Insurance Company
• California Indemnity Insurance Company
• CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY
• California Compensation Insurance Co.
• CALIFORNIA INSURANCE CO.
• California Compensation Insurance Company
• CALIFORNIA CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES
• California Claims Management Services
• California Insurance Co.
• California Compensation

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.