Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue3
• AOE/COE2
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Anaheim 3
• Los Angeles 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Oxnard 1
• Riverside 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Stockton 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.

• 6 for the defense
• 4 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

• ADJ17726478 · 2025-10-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued July 11, 2025. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant was employed by Samuel Hale, LLC (Hale) as the general employer and DiBara Masonry (DiBara) as the special employer, that applicant's employment with Hale was subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement with the UFCW, that there was a valid alternative dispute resolution agreement, and that the WCAB does not have jurisdiction. The WCJ ordered the case dismissed without prejudice, invalidated applicant's election under Labor Code 5500.5,1 and ordered the case off calendar.

  The WCJ found a valid collective bargaining agreement and ADR agreement, leading to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, but the WCAB found the record incomplete and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19258673 · 2025-07-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ's award of temporary disability indemnity was based upon the January 30,

  The WCJ's award was based on substantial evidence from PQME Dr. Ehya's report, which found applicant not permanent and stationary and entitled to continuing temporary disability indemnity. Defendant failed to show modified work was offered.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16554524 · 2025-06-09 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we grant cost petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the F&O and substitute a new decision that finds that the services provided by cost petitioner to obtain records from San Diego Orthopedic Associates Medical Group were reasonable and necessary at the time they were performed and that cost petitioner is entitled to payment for the services; that cost petitioner did not meet its burden to show that it was entitled to payment for the cost of the subpoena to Sedgwick; and that cost petitioner did not engage in bad faith or frivolous conduct and sanctions are not warranted; and defers the issue of whether defendant's conduct was in bad faith or frivolous, thereby subjecting it to sanctions, costs and attorney's fees.

  The services by cost petitioner to obtain records from San Diego Orthopedic Associates Medical Group were reasonable and necessary and cost petitioner is entitled to payment; cost petitioner did not meet burden for subpoena to Sedgwick; no bad faith or frivolous conduct by cost petitioner; issue of defendant's bad faith deferred.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ15834374 · 2025-04-14 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Based on testimony provided by the parties and exhibits offered into evidence this WCJ issued a factual determination that the applicant was jointly employed by both Sunview Logistics Inc. and Manpreet the applicant/dba Speed Intermodal, and with both employers being jointly and severally liable.

  The WCJ found substantial evidence that applicant was jointly employed by both Sunview Logistics, Inc. and Speed Intermodal, both owned by Manpreet the applicant, with joint control and mutual benefit, leading to joint and several liability. The Appeals Board affirmed this finding, rejecting the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ14203968 · 2024-06-04 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We now further analyze the meaning of section 3600(a)(8) and whether applicant's guilty

  The WCAB concluded that the applicant's guilty plea to a misdemeanor under Arizona law is not equivalent to a felony or a crime punishable as a felony under California Penal Code section 17(b), and thus the workers' compensation claim is not barred by section 3600(a)(8).

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ15256075 · 2023-07-20 · Stockton District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Order (F&O) issued on May 2, 2023 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction to address the validity of the May 19, 2016 decision of the Administrative Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (AD) recognizing Samuel Hale's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process under the collectively bargained Labor-Management Agreement (WCA) pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3201.7 (Sam Hale carve-out agreement); and, jurisdiction over applicant's workers' compensation claim is with the Sam Hale carve-out agreement pursuant to section 3201.7 and WCAB Rule 10990 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10990). The WCJ then deferred the dismissal of applicant's Application for Adjudication of Claim.

  The WCAB lacks jurisdiction over the claim because jurisdiction is vested in the Sam Hale ADR process under Labor Code section 3201.7 and WCAB Rule 10990; allegations of forgery and unfair labor practices do not confer jurisdiction to the WCAB.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14203968 · 2022-07-01 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 8, 2022 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his lumbar spine, bilateral knees, bilateral wrists, and left ankle, but that applicant's rights to workers' compensation benefits are barred as defendants are entitled to a defense under Labor Code,1 section 3600(a)(8).

  Applicant sustained injury arising out of employment, but the defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(8) applies because the injury occurred during the commission of misdemeanors punishable by jail time, barring workers' compensation benefits.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15820808 · 2025-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny removal. Removal 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

  Removal is an extraordinary remedy and is only granted if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. Defendant did not meet this burden.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15072799 · 2024-12-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, we are unable to conduct meaningful review of the petition or render a decision until we have received a complete record. Thus, this is not a final decision on the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration, and once a final decision is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to sections 5950 et seq.

  The Appeals Board could not conduct meaningful review or render a decision on the merits because the arbitration record lacked required documents, including the arbitrator's report and other items per WCAB Rule 10914(c).

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16802648 · 2024-08-30 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Accordingly, the petition for removal is now moot, and we will dismiss the petition.

  The petition for removal became moot after the trial WCJ issued a final decision that was not challenged.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14111819 · 2021-12-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on September 21, 2021. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Monday, October 18, 2021 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on October 19, 2021 is untimely and will be dismissed.

  The petition for reconsideration was filed one day after the 25-day deadline from the WCJ's decision service date, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ14203968 · 2021-10-19 · Anaheim District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3At trial, applicant's counsel objected to the admissibility of the dashcam videos on the ground of lack of authentication and lack of foundation. (MOE/SOE dated June 21, 2021, p. 5:10- 11.) Applicant's counsel called into question the reliability of the dashcam videos because the videos are not one continuous footage, but has been cut out into four different segments. (MOE/SOE dated June 21, 2021, p. 5:19-22.) The WCJ sustained the objection, which appears to be on the grounds that defendant did not list a witness in the Pre-trial Conference Statement who can testify as to the videos' chain of custody, how the films were prepared, what equipment was used to film, and whether there has been any editing, splicing, or alteration of the film. (Transcript dated June 21, 2021, pp. 23:9-24:5; MOE/SOE dated June 21, 2021, pp. 5:23-6:1.)

  The WCAB concluded that the dashcam videos were improperly excluded because the authentication standard applied by the WCJ was incorrect and that the defendant should be allowed to authenticate the videos through applicant's testimony or other witnesses.

  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.

• Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company
• CLEAR SPRING PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY
• CLEAR SPRING PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY
• CLEAR SPRING PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO.
• CLEAR SPRING PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
• Clear Spring Property & Casualty
• Clear Spring Insurance

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.