Intercare

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Fresno 15
• Van Nuys 12
• Oakland 11
• Los Angeles 8
• Anaheim 7
• Marina del Rey 7
• Salinas 6
• Santa Rosa 6
• San Francisco 5
• San Diego 4
• Riverside 3
• Sacramento 3

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.

• 53 for the defense
• 30 for the applicant
• 17 returned for more record

Counted over 94 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.

• ADJ11087603 · 2026-06-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 12, 2025 Findings of Fact, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her low back and left shoulder while employed as a caregiver, Occupational Group Number 340, on August 16, 2017. The WCJ also found compensable consequences in the form of an intraoperative stroke affecting the head, right upper extremity, gait, right lower extremity and facial weakness. The WCJ deferred the issue of whether applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her brain, throat (dysphasia)1, and psyche. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent total disability of 100%.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board relied on the AME Dr. Lawrence Richman's thorough examination, detailed reports, and deposition testimony, which were supported by substantial medical evidence, to find the applicant permanently and totally disabled. The vocational expert's opinions were found unpersuasive and not substantial evidence to rebut the AME's opinion or the applicant's credible testimony.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ21030204 · 2026-05-22 · Fresno District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Turning now to the merits of the Petition, defendant contends that based upon the current record, including applicant's October 8, 2025 testimony regarding seasonal employment with defendant and lack of evidence of off season earnings, applicant is not entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits for the off season. (Petition, pp. 3-5.)

  The record lacked sufficient evidence regarding the seasonal employment status and off season earnings, requiring further development of the record to determine entitlement to temporary disability benefits off season.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ22325507 · 2026-05-11 · Los Angeles District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. In addition to the reasons stated by the WCA, we note the following observations. The WCA, in significant part, based the opinion in this matter upon the recent panel decision of Canto Shadoan v. City of San Diego. (91 Cal.Comp.Cases 352, 2025 Cal.Work.Comp. P.D. LEXIX 435 (writ den.).). On April 29, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied review in Canto Shadoan with an unpublished opinion expressing agreement with the logic of the case. The WCA did not find apportionment based upon causation in this matter. Both of applicant's disabilities were rated using the exact same method contained in the AMA Guides, which was range of motion. Both AMEs in both cases found that applicant's impairment was 100% industrial in accordance with section 4663(e). Both disability awards are based upon a finding of 100% industrial causation.

  The WCAB found that apportionment under section 4664 by the subtraction method is allowed despite the anti-attribution clause of section 4663(e) because the prior award overlaps the present award and both use the same AMA Guides rating method.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9425810 · 2026-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.15However, this analysis misconstrues the compensability requirements under section 3208.3 with respect to a claim of psychiatric injury. Section 3208.3(b)(1) requires the applicant "demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1).) Here, there is no dispute that the QME has opined that 60 percent of applicant's psychiatric injury was caused by actual events of employment. (Ex. R, Report of Boukje Eerkens, Psy.D., dated May 23, 2017, at p. 2.) Thus, applicant's claim of psychiatric injury meets the predominance requirements of section 3208.3(b)(1).

  The QME opined that 60% of the psychiatric injury was caused by actual events of employment, meeting the predominance requirement under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1). The employer failed to prove that good-faith personnel action was a substantial cause of the injury under section 3208.3(h).

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ11533485 · 2026-01-20 · Fresno District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed

  Determinative passage · p.13Applicant's current permanent disability rates as follows: 15.03.01.00 - 8 - [1.4]11 - 491H - 14 = 14% Applicant's disability rating does not require the assistance of a DEU rater in this case. (See Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010), 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 613, 624-625 (Appeals Board en banc).) After apportionment under section 4664, applicant's permanent disability award in this case is 2% (14% - 12%). Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration we will rescind the WCJ's May 14, 2021 F&A and issue a new F&A, which affirms the WCJ's findings as to temporary disability, and finds that applicant's injury caused 2% permanent disability after apportionment. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings of Fact, Award, Order, and Opinion on Decision issued on May 14, 2021is RESCINDED, with the following SUBSTITUTED in its place:

  The Appeals Board found that the applicant's current permanent disability rating was a progression of a prior rated impairment using the same AMA Guides chart, entitling defendant to apportionment under section 4664(b). The permanent disability was reduced to 2% after apportionment.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ21635072 · 2026-01-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.73. The Arbitrator found that apportionment pursuant Labor Code § 4664(b) to a prior permanent disability Award to the lumbar spine is precluded by the anti-attribution clause in Labor Code § 4663(e), and therefore the applicant is entitled to an Award without apportionment.

  The anti-attribution clause in Labor Code 4663(e) precludes apportionment to prior awards for presumptively compensable injuries; defendant failed to provide substantial evidence of overlap to meet burden of proof for apportionment under Labor Code 4664(b).

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ1022470 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the decisions in ADJ3880940 and ADJ4230890, and substitute new decisions that find that CIGA and Desert have joint and several liability and order that Desert is to administer applicant's further medical treatment, and defer the issue of new and further disability in ADJ4230890. We make no other changes to any of the other decisions.

  The Board deferred the issue of new and further disability because the record was inadequate to determine whether the applicant sustained new and further disability and whether a petition to reopen was filed, and CIGA waived the issue by not raising it earlier.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ14649350 · 2025-09-15 · Oakland District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10Moreover, although the December 23, 2024 Application did not explicitly state that it was a Petition to Reopen, it clearly indicated that compensation had been paid, that applicant was claiming injury for additional body parts not compensated by the prior Stipulations, and that applicant had disputes with defendant regarding liability for reimbursement of medical expenses as well as liability for "pressure on forehead lesion/scar area not accepted with headaches as part of permanent disability." (12/23/24 Application, at pp. 4-5, case number ADJ20293644.) We are required to liberally construe the allegations in a petition, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) Thus, we conclude that applicant's December 23, 2024 Application was intended to serve as a Petition to Reopen pursuant to section 5410, and we will treat applicant's Application as a timely filed Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability.

  Applicant's December 23, 2024 Application was timely and should be treated as a Petition to Reopen for new and further disability. The WCJ erred by dismissing two case numbers and declining QME re-evaluation without an evidentiary hearing or record, denying applicant an opportunity to be heard.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ3246274 · 2025-09-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.72. Pursuant to Labor Code section 5412, applicant's date of injury is May 14, 2002.

  The date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is May 14, 2002, based on the concurrence of knowledge and disability when applicant was taken off work and paid temporary disability. The period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5 is May 14, 2001 through May 14, 2002, as the date of injury controls liability determination. CIGA's petition to dismiss was denied because Quest and Travelers did not have coverage during the period of liability, so CIGA remains properly joined. The issue of Travelers' dismissal was deferred.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15643990 · 2025-08-27 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.5is on disability due to the combined effect of multiple injuries. As the only issues on appeal are temporary disability and section 4850 benefits, we will rescind the F&As and reissue them deferring the issues of temporary disability and section 4850 benefits, and return these matters to the parties to adjust the periods of disability and section 4850 time, with jurisdiction reserved at the trial level in the event of a dispute.

  The Board held that section 4850 benefits run concurrently when the applicant is on disability due to multiple injuries, and the issues of temporary disability and section 4850 benefits were deferred for adjustment at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16333606 · 2025-05-19 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 20, 2025, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) of Valley Fever or lungs and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of the claim filed.

  Applicant contends entitlement to the presumption of injury AOE/COE under Labor Code section 3212 as a police officer, which the WCAB preliminarily agrees applies, but the WCJ applied section 3212.10. The case is remanded for further review of the presumption and rebuttal evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8923383 · 2025-05-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeCumulative traumadeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant X-Ray Productions petitions for reconsideration of the March 5, 2024 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed during the period of November 22, 1998 through January 1, 2000 did not sustain industrial injury as a result of cumulative trauma. Petitioner contends that the WCJ erred in failing to find a cumulative trauma. Petitioner argues that the evidence presented pursuant to Labor Code sections 5500.5 and 5412 establish a cumulative trauma with an end date of either December 5, 1998 or November 22, 1998. Petitioner also argues that the WCJ denied defendant due process by denying defendant the right to examine witnesses at trial and conduct discovery. Finally, petitioner contends that there is new evidence which should be considered by the WCJ.

  The Board did not rule on the merits but rescinded the prior Findings and Order and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings after the parties settled by Compromise and Release.

  Official decision · page 1 →

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 27.

• INTERCARE
• INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.
• Intercare
• INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES
• Intercare Holdings Insurance Services, Inc.
• INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES
• Intercare Insurance Services
• Intercare Holdings Insurance Services
• INTERCARE HOLDING INSURANCE SERVICES
• INTERCARE 5915 ORANGE
• INTERCARE INSURANCE
• INTERCARE HOLDINGS

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.