California WCABInsurance carrier

Church Mutual Insurance Company

Church Mutual Insurance Company is named as an insurance carrier in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Apportionment (1) and Psyche AOE/COE (1). Defense most often ran through Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, LLP (6). The employer appearing most often is Frontier Communications (3). The office that heard the most of them is Sacramento.

Decisions: 11
Years: 2022–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 7

What they litigate

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

Who defends them

9 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Whose claims they run

Frontier Communications3
Camp Fire USA Sierra Council2
Ari G. Minassian School1
Calvary Murrieta Christian School1
Community Warriors 4 Peace1
Lafayette Orinda Presbyterian Church1
Lake Avenue Congregational Church1
Mecum Auctions, INC.1
Menlo Church1
Mission Acts Ministries1

Where they appear

Sacramento 3
Anaheim 2
Van Nuys 2
Los Angeles 1
Oakland 1
Riverside 1
San Francisco 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.

5 for the defense
4 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ7894308 · 2025-08-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6We find defendant's argument in this respect to be unpersuasive, however, because the undisputed evidence establishes that applicant's psychiatric disability did not arise out of a generalized anxiety or fear of job loss. Rather, applicant's psychiatric disability arose in part from actual notice of non-renewal of his employment contract that occurred some three to four months prior to his last day worked. Framed in terms of the analysis of the Court of Appeal in Bryan, the notice of non-renewal was "something that [took] place" in the employment relationship and arose "out of an employee's working relationship with his or her employer." (Bryan, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1181.)
The WCAB found that the notice of contract non-renewal was an actual event of employment and thus not subject to apportionment; the apportionment opinions of the QMEs were not substantial evidence; applicant is entitled to unapportioned psychiatric and sleep-related disability.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ10983565 · 2025-08-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) insurance carrier for Mecum Auctions (Mecum) and defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company (Church) carrier for Victory Outreach Chino (Victory) each seek reconsideration of the April 29, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that on the date of injury Victory was the general employer, Mission Acts Ministries (Mission) was the employer and personnel staffing agency, and Mecum was the special employer of applicant.
The WCAB found that applicant was an employee, not a volunteer, because he performed services in exchange for benefits such as residence and participation in a rehabilitation program, and Mecum had control over the work performed, establishing a special employer relationship.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11994224 · 2025-05-23 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In my F&A, I followed the reports of the Agreed Medical Evaluators. I found that applicant suffered injury arising from and within the course and scope of employment to his head, neck, back, right wrist, right knee, cognitive and vestibular systems. The injury resulted in 49% partial permanent disability, based on the formal permanent disability rating of the agreed medical reports. I awarded a 15% attorney fee to applicant attorney from the 49% indemnity awarded. I awarded applicant's permanent partial indemnity, less the attorney fee and less the temporary total indemnity overpayment.
The WCJ's findings of 49% permanent partial disability and a 15% attorney fee were supported by substantial evidence including agreed medical reports and surveillance evidence, and were upheld on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ16148307 · 2024-08-09 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Here, as set forth by the WCJ, applicant demonstrated that his claimed injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Applicant credibly testified that when he was shot, he was at the location due to his employment and was engaged in his regular job duties, and he credibly testified that he did not know why he was shot. Once applicant provided that evidence, the burden shifted to defendant.
Applicant credibly testified that he was shot while performing his regular job duties and was at the location due to his employment; defendant failed to present evidence to rebut this, and the injury was found compensable under the neutral risk and special risk-zone of danger doctrines.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ15957076 · 2023-12-04 · Riverside District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2As explained below, applicant's refusal of defendant's modified work offer was reasonable, given that it was not clearly communicated to the applicant how the offer incorporated modified duties commensurate with her condition. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings and Order of September 14, 2023, and issue a new decision reflecting entitlement to additional temporary disability benefits from September 12, 2022 to October 3, 2023.
Applicant's refusal of modified work was reasonable because the work restrictions and modified duties were not adequately communicated to her, so she was entitled to temporary disability benefits from September 12, 2022 to October 3, 2023.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12491308 · 2026-01-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.
The matter was pending on reconsideration but the parties reached a proposed settlement, so the WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the settlement.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3117080 · 2025-10-27 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Here, applicant's Petition for Removal describes itself as an "objection to DOR ADJ3117080 QME Hearing dated August 5, 2025." Both the Minute Order and the stipulation and Order that issued on August 5, 2025 were at the joint request and/or stipulation of the parties. Applicant does not state what substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if either the Minute Order or the Stipulation and Order that she initially agreed to remain undisturbed. Thus, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Once the parties proceed to trial, they will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence. The trial WCJ can then consider the evidence and the legal arguments raised by the parties and determine how best to proceed.
Applicant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; orders were by joint request or stipulation.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11145757 · 2025-09-29 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal, or in the alternative, reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) July 16, 2025 minute order denying applicant's request for automatic reassignment.
The WCJ's denial of automatic reassignment was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed. Removal was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11896735 · 2025-06-03 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2We note that we are unable to discern what applicant's actual contentions are. As explained further below, to the extent that she seeks review of our February 18, 2025 Decision, such a petition would be seeking review of a non-final order and would be untimely. If she seeks review of the orders taking her case off calendar and continuing the matter, based upon the PWCJ's analysis of the merits of applicant's arguments in the attached Report from the PWCJ, we will dismiss the petition.
The petition was untimely and failed to state grounds for relief, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11896735 · 2025-02-18 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 17, 2024, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, February 15, 2025. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Tuesday, February 18, 2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)3 This decision is issued by or on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
The petition was dismissed as premature because the WCAB acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909 after the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 17, 2024, and the decision was issued on February 18, 2025, the next business day after the 60-day period.
Official decision · page 3 →

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.

CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Church Mutual Insurance Company
Church Mutual Insurance Co.

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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Church Mutual Insurance Company

Decisions

Years

2022–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

4 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ7894308 · 2025-08-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6We find defendant's argument in this respect to be unpersuasive, however, because the undisputed evidence establishes that applicant's psychiatric disability did not arise out of a generalized anxiety or fear of job loss. Rather, applicant's psychiatric disability arose in part from actual notice of non-renewal of his employment contract that occurred some three to four months prior to his last day worked. Framed in terms of the analysis of the Court of Appeal in Bryan, the notice of non-renewal was "something that [took] place" in the employment relationship and arose "out of an employee's working relationship with his or her employer." (Bryan, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1181.)

The WCAB found that the notice of contract non-renewal was an actual event of employment and thus not subject to apportionment; the apportionment opinions of the QMEs were not substantial evidence; applicant is entitled to unapportioned psychiatric and sleep-related disability.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ10983565 · 2025-08-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) insurance carrier for Mecum Auctions (Mecum) and defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company (Church) carrier for Victory Outreach Chino (Victory) each seek reconsideration of the April 29, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that on the date of injury Victory was the general employer, Mission Acts Ministries (Mission) was the employer and personnel staffing agency, and Mecum was the special employer of applicant.

The WCAB found that applicant was an employee, not a volunteer, because he performed services in exchange for benefits such as residence and participation in a rehabilitation program, and Mecum had control over the work performed, establishing a special employer relationship.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11994224 · 2025-05-23 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6In my F&A, I followed the reports of the Agreed Medical Evaluators. I found that applicant suffered injury arising from and within the course and scope of employment to his head, neck, back, right wrist, right knee, cognitive and vestibular systems. The injury resulted in 49% partial permanent disability, based on the formal permanent disability rating of the agreed medical reports. I awarded a 15% attorney fee to applicant attorney from the 49% indemnity awarded. I awarded applicant's permanent partial indemnity, less the attorney fee and less the temporary total indemnity overpayment.

The WCJ's findings of 49% permanent partial disability and a 15% attorney fee were supported by substantial evidence including agreed medical reports and surveillance evidence, and were upheld on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ16148307 · 2024-08-09 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Here, as set forth by the WCJ, applicant demonstrated that his claimed injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Applicant credibly testified that when he was shot, he was at the location due to his employment and was engaged in his regular job duties, and he credibly testified that he did not know why he was shot. Once applicant provided that evidence, the burden shifted to defendant.

Applicant credibly testified that he was shot while performing his regular job duties and was at the location due to his employment; defendant failed to present evidence to rebut this, and the injury was found compensable under the neutral risk and special risk-zone of danger doctrines.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ15957076 · 2023-12-04 · Riverside District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2As explained below, applicant's refusal of defendant's modified work offer was reasonable, given that it was not clearly communicated to the applicant how the offer incorporated modified duties commensurate with her condition. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings and Order of September 14, 2023, and issue a new decision reflecting entitlement to additional temporary disability benefits from September 12, 2022 to October 3, 2023.

Applicant's refusal of modified work was reasonable because the work restrictions and modified duties were not adequately communicated to her, so she was entitled to temporary disability benefits from September 12, 2022 to October 3, 2023.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12491308 · 2026-01-14 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

The matter was pending on reconsideration but the parties reached a proposed settlement, so the WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the settlement.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3117080 · 2025-10-27 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Here, applicant's Petition for Removal describes itself as an "objection to DOR ADJ3117080 QME Hearing dated August 5, 2025." Both the Minute Order and the stipulation and Order that issued on August 5, 2025 were at the joint request and/or stipulation of the parties. Applicant does not state what substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if either the Minute Order or the Stipulation and Order that she initially agreed to remain undisturbed. Thus, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Once the parties proceed to trial, they will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence. The trial WCJ can then consider the evidence and the legal arguments raised by the parties and determine how best to proceed.

Applicant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; orders were by joint request or stipulation.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11145757 · 2025-09-29 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal, or in the alternative, reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) July 16, 2025 minute order denying applicant's request for automatic reassignment.

The WCJ's denial of automatic reassignment was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed. Removal was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11896735 · 2025-06-03 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2We note that we are unable to discern what applicant's actual contentions are. As explained further below, to the extent that she seeks review of our February 18, 2025 Decision, such a petition would be seeking review of a non-final order and would be untimely. If she seeks review of the orders taking her case off calendar and continuing the matter, based upon the PWCJ's analysis of the merits of applicant's arguments in the attached Report from the PWCJ, we will dismiss the petition.

The petition was untimely and failed to state grounds for relief, so it was dismissed.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11896735 · 2025-02-18 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 17, 2024, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, February 15, 2025. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Tuesday, February 18, 2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)3 This decision is issued by or on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).

The petition was dismissed as premature because the WCAB acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909 after the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 17, 2024, and the decision was issued on February 18, 2025, the next business day after the 60-day period.

Official decision · page 3 →