Corvel

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 20
• Anaheim 10
• Los Angeles 9
• Santa Ana 9
• Long Beach 6
• Marina del Rey 5
• Oakland 5
• Pomona 5
• San Jose 5
• Fresno 4
• Lodi 4
• San Diego 4

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.

• 61 for the defense
• 37 for the applicant
• 13 returned for more record

Counted over 108 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.

• ADJ20172102 · 2026-05-15 · Lodi District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, as explained above, the notice of hearing for November 19. 2025 did not identify the hearing as an in person hearing, so that a failure to appear in person cannot be the basis for the NIT. Moreover, the initial NIT in the MOH of November 19, 2025 indicated an intent to sanction "David Jane & Associates." The later Order for sanctions actually sanctioned both David Na and David Jane & Associates. The inclusion of David Na should have triggered a new notice of intent as it includes, for all intents and purposes, a separate party. As result, the order is null and void as the precipitating notice did not include both parties and therefore, they were not given notice and opportunity to be heard.

  The WCAB found that the notice of hearing did not clearly require in-person appearance or identify Mr. Na as required to appear, and that due process was not satisfied. The record did not demonstrate bad faith or support the sanctions imposed.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10598940 · 2026-04-10 · Fresno District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12III DISCUSSION I. The WCAB had no jurisdiction and therefore the Medical Unit had no jurisdiction for Gallagher Bassett to request panel # 7404253 on 4/9/21. The board has no jurisdiction over any aspect of a workers' compensation claim until an application for adjudication has been filed. This rule has been codified in Regulation 10450(b). The Medical Unit, which issues QME panels, operates under the authority of the WCAB. Since the WCAB has no jurisdiction until an application is filed, the Medical Unit cannot issue a QME panel without an underlying case that gives the WCAB jurisdiction. In this case, as of 4/9/21 ADJ16413854 did not exist. There was no petition for new and further disability filed in ADJ10598940. No jurisdiction had been established on 4/9/21 to request panel # 7404253. (Labor Code Section 5500, nor Regulation 10450(b).) Therefore, panel # 7404253 is an invalid panel. a. There is no legal basis to argue Panel #7404253 dated 4/9/21 was requested to enforce a stipulated medical award. Future medical awards are enforced pursuant to LC § 4610. Treating physicians submit requests for authorization (RFAs) for medical treatment. The RFAs are then subject to utilization review (UR). b.

  The WCAB lacked jurisdiction to issue QME Panel 7404253 on 4/9/21 because the underlying case ADJ16413854 did not exist at that time, and no petition for new and further disability was filed in ADJ10598940. Therefore, the panel was invalid and Dr. Graham's reports were excluded.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ19034450 · 2026-01-30 · Anaheim District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In this case, applicant contends defendant unreasonably delayed payment of the settlement proceeds, such that a Labor Code section 5814 penalty is warranted. The WCJ "... found that Defendants are not subject to Labor Code § 5814 penalties as the delay in dispersing the settlement proceeds was not unreasonable and the delay was promptly corrected." (Report, December 1, 2025, p. 4, § 2). We agree but for the reasons discussed below.

  The delay in payment was found not to be unreasonable or intentional, but rather a reasonable human error promptly corrected, with no evidence of institutional neglect or significant impact on applicant, thus no penalties were warranted.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12302753 · 2026-01-23 · Lodi District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Internal medicine PQME Dr. Mahmoudi also provides a substantial opinion regarding the worsening of applicant's hypertension. As noted in the WCJ's Report, Dr. Mahmoudi opined that applicant has industrial hypertension due to deconditioning and the cumulative effects of his injury. (See Applicant's Exhibit 4, Deposition of Dr. Mahmoudi, p. 8, lines 3-12). He felt that applicant had an increase in hypertension from stage 1 to stage 2 and that increase is industrial, especially given applicant's use of NSAIDs. (Id. at p. 9, lines 17-25). He confirmed that all the prior blood pressure measurements that he is using to find causations for the hypertension predate the stipulated award of October 31, 2022. (Id. at p. 16, lines 21-25). He also testified that applicant's first class 2 diagnosis for hypertension was on April 14, 2021. (Id. at p. 35, lines 6-16). The QME reaffirmed that he felt this was industrial due to the NSAIDs, weight gain, and total knee replacement, especially since NSAIDs can increase blood pressure. (Id. at pp.

  The WCJ found new and further disability of the left knee and hypertension based on substantial medical evidence, including unrebutted opinions of PQME Dr. Mahmoudi and Dr. Sclafani, and concluded the stipulated award was properly reopened under section 5410 and 5803.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ18928997 · 2025-12-22 · Lodi District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8On reconsideration, defendant does not challenge the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE to the right knee. Upon the finding of industrial causation, an award of possible future medical treatment is appropriate and no specific modalities of treatment are being awarded. Although treaters, Dr. Ramesh and NP Janz-Navarro, discharged applicant from care on March 5, 2024, Dr. Pettegrew subsequently indicated on April 24, 2024 that applicant should continue physical therapy and therapy sessions for group strength would also be appropriate, thereafter applicant could "follow up as needed." (Id. at p. 8.) This is a treater's indication for future medical treatment. Additionally, Dr. Vincent indicated over-the-counter NSAIDs and pain medication, conservative home care for ongoing management can continue; this is the medical-legal expert's indication for future medical treatment.

  The WCJ found a need for further medical treatment based on the QME's opinion and medical records indicating ongoing treatment needs, which the Appeals Board affirmed.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ19473797 · 2025-12-16 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration and removal of the September 12, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained an injury to his psyche arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) while employed by defendant during the period from January 18, 2023 to May 27, 2024; that defendant demonstrated there was a good-faith personnel action; and that the record lacks sufficient evidence to determine permanent and stationary date, permanent disability, apportionment and the need for further medical treatment. The WCJ deferred those issues, ordered that the parties develop the record on those issues; and ordered that the parties return to the respective psych doctors to complete a Rolda analysis and issue a final report.

  The WCJ deferred determination of permanent disability, apportionment, and need for further medical treatment pending further development of the record. The WCAB deferred final decision on these issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14789657 · 2025-10-24 · San Jose District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the July 16, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the F&A, as relevant here, the WCJ found that while employed by defendant on April 29, 2021, as a tree trimmer, occupational group number 482, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his left hand, neck, right shoulder, right arm, right upper extremity, and psyche resulting in permanent and total disability with no apportionment.

  The WCJ and WCAB found the applicant permanently and totally disabled with no apportionment based on substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Rakkar and psychiatric QME Dr. Alvarellos, who rated the applicant's orthopedic and psychiatric impairments and found no overlap in activities of daily living, supporting addition of impairments and rebuttal of the permanent disability schedule (CVC).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13262420 · 2025-10-20 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.4II. We begin with the issue of employment. The WCJ found that on February 10, 2020, applicant was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and that applicant was not employed by BBSI. No party has challenged those findings. Accordingly, those findings will not be disturbed. If the liable party is uninsured, UEBTF may potentially provide workers' compensation benefits to applicant. When this matter was already set for trial, applicant petitioned for the joinder of UEBTF in connection to alleged employer Compass and for the joinder of Compass. Orders joining Compass and UEBTF issued on December 21, 2022. Applicant requested the dismissal of Compass on March 15, 2023. There is no evidence that Compass or UEBTF have participated in the litigation. However, the WCJ awarded benefits to applicant against both Compass and Kenneth C. Ray, even though Compass and UEBTF did not participate or attend the proceedings. Additionally, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed by Kenneth C.

  The WCJ found, and no party challenged, that applicant was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and not by BBSI on February 10, 2020.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14609243 · 2025-10-13 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3The only disputed issues deal with the impairment caused by the ulcerative colitis, and the apportionment of industrial versus non-industrial disability, Both issues were arguably addressed by QME Dr. Gwartz in his report admitted into evidence. It was the conclusion of Dr. Gwartz that the impairment should be apportioned 30% to industrial factors and 70% to non-industrial factors.

  The WCJ found Dr. Gwartz's opinion self-contradictory and insufficient as substantial medical evidence to support apportionment. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the record and merits, deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ15013684 · 2025-08-01 · Santa Rosa District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814remanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on May 7, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&A, in pertinent part, found that defendant did not unreasonably delay payment of temporary disability, permanent disability, or reimbursement to Employment Development Department (EDD), but found that applicant was entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5813 and awarded attorney's fees with the parties to adjust.

  The WCJ found no unreasonable delay by defendant in reimbursing EDD and no basis for penalties, but awarded attorney's fees without sufficient findings of bad faith; the WCAB found insufficient evidence to support penalties or attorney's fees and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11130675 · 2025-06-05 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent total disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11A traumatic injury may lead to permanent mental incapacity in severe cases; however, a traumatic brain injury is not synonymous with having permanent mental incapacity. "Incapacity" is "the quality or state of being incapable; especially lack of physical or intellectual power or of natural or legal qualifications." ("Incapacity", Merriam-Webster Dictionary, online ed., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incapacity, last reviewed September 17, 2024 (emphasis added).) Here, no evidence exists to find that applicant is permanently mentally incapacitated. Applicant was able to coherently testify to the events of his case. The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible.4

  No evidence applicant is permanently mentally incapacitated; WCJ's finding of permanent total disability under section 4662(a)(4) was in error and rescinded

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ18711098 · 2025-02-13 · Anaheim District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Here, the evidentiary record does not disclose when or how the two written statements provided to the QME were transmitted, and whether they were transmitted to the QME directly or to another entity. In addition, the record does not disclose whether the QME requested these records during the telehealth evaluation on October 23, 2023. Because the factual determination of how and why the records in question were transmitted to the QME is a necessary consideration in the evaluation of the issues presented, we conclude that the current record is insufficient to allow for a complete adjudication of this matter.

  The record was insufficient to determine whether the applicant engaged in impermissible ex parte communication with the QME, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 9 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 16.

• CORVEL CORPORATION
• CORVEL
• Corvel
• Corvel Corporation
• CorVel
• CORVEL CORP.
• CORVEL CHINO
• CorVel Corporation
• CORVEL SACRAMENTO
• CORVEL, OCCUSURE CLAIMS SERVICES
• CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMPANY, INC.
• CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP, INC.

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.