Homestate Companies

What they litigate

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

• Penalties under Labor Code §58142
• AOE/COE1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 2
• Fresno 1
• Los Angeles Office 1
• Oakland 1
• Oxnard 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.

• 4 for the applicant
• 3 for the defense

Counted over 6 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.

• ADJ16728100 · 2025-10-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Cost petitioner contends, in pertinent part, that the discovery issues remain relevant and that defendant engaged in bad faith actions by unreasonably delaying payment.

  The Cost Petitioner failed to prove bad faith by the defendants, which is required to impose sanctions and attorney fees under Labor Code section 5813 and CCR section 10545(h). The defendants paid the requested amount and a self-imposed penalty, and no evidence of unreasonable delay or bad faith was presented.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12410207 · 2024-05-03 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of February 5, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, while working as a utility worker for FCEC/SMG, sustained injury (arising out of and occurring in the course of employment) to his left ankle and left arm, as a result of falling from a forklift on May 23, 2019. In addition, the WCJ found that "applicant asked a forklift operator co-employee to give him a ride to his car in the parking lot so he could retrieve his lunch," that "as a result of actions of a co-employee, applicant was thrown off the forklift, sustaining injury to his left ankle and left arm," that the "employer has denied the claim in its entirety," that "applicant sustained his injuries on employer's premises (i.e., the parking lot adjacent to the Convention Center), therefore he was within the curtilage of the building in which he worked, which was thus under employer's exclusive control," that "the co-employee, who was a trained and certificated forklift driver, gave the co-employee superior knowledge as to the safe operation of the forklift," that "aside from the self-serving testimony of employer's operations manager, no corroborating evidence was presented as to safety meeting discussions regarding the safe use of forklifts," that "applicant's testimony, therefore, that he received no such

  The injury occurred while the applicant was on an employer-designated parking lot during an employer-approved lunch break, and the injury arose from a risk connected with employment, not horseplay or negligence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9985543 · 2024-04-22 · Oxnard District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Lien claimant contends that it should receive penalties and interest based on the date that it first submitted its bills to defendant. However, at the initial trial in April 2022, the earlier bills were admitted into evidence and considered by the WCJ. The WCJ found that there was no substantial evidence regarding the reasonable value of lien claimant's reasonable medical treatment services. (5/19/22 F&O, Finding of Fact no. 7, p. 2.) Thus, since the WCJ found that he was unable to determine the amount owed to lien claimant based on those earlier bills, we cannot base any penalties and interest for defendant's failure to pay the amounts on the earlier bills.

  The lien claimant did not establish entitlement to penalties and interest because the corrected bill was paid timely within 45 days, and earlier bills were not determinable for reasonable value.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ15763825 · 2025-09-16 · Los Angeles Office District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

  The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within 60 days of case transmission and found no grounds to overturn the WCJ's findings and award.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ14635315 · 2025-08-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION 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); 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A

  Due process requires a record of the parties' arguments to review the order; absence of such record prejudices lien claimant and justifies removal and rescission of the order.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ20199681 · 2025-04-01 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that there is substantial medical evidence to support the WCA's decision. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the record was not properly developed and substantial medical evidence was unclear, requiring further review.

  Official decision · page 5 →

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.

• HOMESTATE COMPANIES
• Homestate Companies
• HOMESTATE COMPANY

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.