Hartford Casualty 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 13
• Long Beach 8
• Los Angeles 5
• Pomona 4
• Santa Ana 4
• Sacramento 3
• Oakland 2
• Riverside 2
• San Diego 2
• Anaheim 1
• Marina del Ray 1
• Marina del Rey 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.

• 25 for the defense
• 20 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 47 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.

• ADJ16635028 · 2026-06-26 · Long Beach District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Whether Sanctions Should be Imposed Against Lien Claimant and/or their Representative [t]he regulations mandate that lien claimants appear at all lien conferences, either in person or by attorney or non-attorney representative.1 The failure to appear at a hearing is sanctionable conduct.2 Sanctions are appropriate for failures to appear where a reasonable excuse is not offered or the offending party has demonstrated a pattern of such conduct.3 (Emphasis added.)

  The tribunal found that Paperwork & More had notice of the hearing and failed to offer a reasonable excuse for non-appearance; sanctions were appropriate and imposed jointly and severally on Paperwork & More and Stanley B. Johnson, but not on Premier Psychological Services.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16635028 · 2025-10-13 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7to the record. Lien claimant offered an explanation regarding the failure to appear, however, the WCJ declined to hold a hearing on the reasonableness of the excuse. We reiterate the following from our April 14, 2025, Opinion and Decision:

  The WCJ imposed sanctions without holding a hearing or making a record regarding whether sanctions were warranted, depriving lien claimant of due process. There is no evidence of a pattern of bad-faith conduct, and no record was made regarding the reasonableness of the explanation for nonappearance.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15951487 · 2025-08-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8From the evidence available, it appears PQME Dr. Wiseman did not complete the formal medical evaluation. PQME Dr. Wiseman did not prepare and serve the comprehensive medical- legal evaluation report on the injured worker, his attorney, the claims administrator or the employer, within thirty days of seeing the applicant. Instead, PQME Dr. Wiseman only served the report on the insurance carrier with a proof of service on The Hartford Syracuse for a Kentucky post office box, mailed date August 6, 2024, from Los Angeles. (Joint Exhibit 1, PQME Dr. Wiseman, PDF page 51.) Such service is on its face is defective. As stated by the WCJ in the Report:

  PQME Dr. Wiseman failed to serve his report on all parties within the statutory timeframe, constituting a violation of 8 CCR 36 and Labor Code requirements; this defect was not cured by later service by defense counsel. The integrity of the process and neutrality of the QME require concurrent service on all parties.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• 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 →
• ADJ13342468 · 2025-05-23 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5person from seeking review from the Appeals Board but also from the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Section 5900 specifically provides that any person may seek reconsideration from the Appeals Board of a WCJ's final order, decision, or award. (§ 5900.) Section 5950 provides that any person may seek a writ of review from the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of an order, decision, or award of the Appeals Board. (§ 5950.) In contrast, section 139.48(b) and Rule 17309 are silent as to any remedy after the trial level of the WCAB. Prohibiting review from the Appeals Board will also prohibit review from the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, which violates the constitutional right to due process. We do not believe that the language in section 139.48 and Rule 17309 create such a draconian limitation. Accordingly, we determine here that applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's denial of a second RTWSP payment is properly before us.

  The Appeals Board determined it has jurisdiction to review the denial of a second RTWSP payment and that the validity of Rule 17302(b) must be challenged in Superior Court, not before the Appeals Board.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16635028 · 2025-04-14 · Long Beach District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we grant lien claimant's Petition, rescind the Order issued on January 13, 2025, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon return to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ hold a hearing to allow the parties to frame the issues and any stipulations, submit exhibits as evidence, call witnesses, if necessary, lodge any objections, and make their legal arguments.

  The WCJ dismissed the lien without a hearing or evidentiary record, depriving the lien claimant of due process and the opportunity to be heard. The Appeals Board found this violated fundamental rights and public policy favoring decisions on the merits.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12032540 · 2024-11-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The WCJ rejected Dr. Perry's opinions because there was no evidence that the applicant was taking NSAIDs or steroids around the time of the stroke. Indeed, the record shows that decedent was taken off prednisone and naproxen in early 2015 and was allergic to ibuprofen. Nevertheless, the WCJ does not appear to evaluate Dr. Perry's opinion that even if decedent stopped taking medications increasing blood pressure in 2015, it could have still contributed to the 2018 stroke. We thus believe that the record should be developed on this issue, and the issue

  The WCJ rejected the industrial causation of the stroke due to lack of evidence of medication use near the stroke date, but the WCAB found the record insufficient and ordered further development to clarify the causative link and medical probability of the medications contributing to the stroke.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12906041 · 2024-07-12 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, who is representing himself, and defendant have filed separate Petitions for Reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings of Facts and Order of May 6, 2024, wherein it was found in case ADJ12906041 that "Applicant is entitled to a temporary total disability period from February 1, 2020 until February 1, 2022" and "Defendant is to take credit for the EDD resolution against temporary total disability owed to the Applicant."1 In case ADJ12906041, while employed on October 31, 2019 as a general and trauma surgeon, applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche and claims injury to the heart, wrists, hands, neck, back, brain, and balance and in the forms of sleep disorder and chest pain.

  The WCJ initially found the temporary disability period started February 1, 2020, but the WCAB found evidence applicant was temporarily disabled starting December 28, 2019, consistent with wage loss and unemployment disability benefits, and limited to 104 weeks under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11881346 · 2024-06-25 · Pomona District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant has failed her burden of proving serious and willful misconduct. While we do not condone the conduct of applicant's supervisor in this matter, it does not rise to the level of serious and willful misconduct or the type of "quasi-criminal" conduct described in Mercer, supra. While applicant's perception may be both real and valid, the fact that applicant's perception of her supervisor's conduct caused psychological injury is not sufficient to find that the supervisor intentionally or recklessly caused such injury under the standard articulated in Mercer, supra.

  Applicant failed to prove that the employer's conduct rose to the level of serious and willful misconduct as required by law, despite the stressful work environment and supervisor's behavior.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14881837 · 2024-06-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9DISCUSSION We turn first to defendant's contention that WCJ erroneously found that defendant did not meet its burden of proof as to apportionment. In Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.), the Appeals Board held that (1) Labor Code section 4663 requires the reporting physician to make an apportionment determination; (2) apportionment to other factors allows apportionment to causation, including pathology, prior conditions, and retroactive work restrictions; (3) applicant holds the initial burden to prove industrial injury and also has the added burden of establishing the approximate percentage of permanent disability directly related to the industrial injury; (4) defendant has the burden of establishing the approximate permanent disability caused by other factors; and (5) a medical report addressing apportionment may not be relied upon unless it constitutes substantial evidence.

  The WCAB found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof on apportionment because the QME's opinion on apportionment was not framed in terms of reasonable medical probability and lacked adequate explanation, thus no apportionment to non-industrial factors was supported.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ17366311 · 2024-01-08 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In circumstances such as this, where a party has failed to comply with the required rules of service for panel QME requests and omitted required documents, we conclude that the procurement of Panel #7578289 was not proper and is therefore invalid, and that, absent removal, applicant will suffer substantial prejudice and irreparable harm. Thus, reconsideration is hereby granted and we find that Panel #7578289 is invalidated for failure to comply with Rule 30(b)(1)(C). We will otherwise affirm the findings of fact determined by the WCJ.

  The panel was invalidated because defendant failed to properly serve the required documents by mail as mandated by AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C), causing substantial prejudice to applicant.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13261083 · 2023-10-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of August 28, 2023, wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending April 29, 2020 as a claims auditor, applicant sustained admitted industrial injury to her hands and psyche causing temporary disability from May 1, 2021 through November 2, 2021.

  The WCJ was entitled to rely on the opinion of treating psychologist Dr. Thomas Fera, who found temporary disability for the period at issue, despite conflicting opinions from QME Dr. Leine Delker. The Board adopted the WCJ's Report and Recommendation denying reconsideration, finding substantial evidence supported the temporary disability award.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 29.

• HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
• HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
• Hartford Casualty Insurance Company
• HARTFORD
• Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest
• HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST
• HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY
• HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO.
• Hartford Sacramento
• HARTFORD SACRAMENTO
• HARTFORD INSURANCE
• HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE HARTFORD

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.