National Casualty Company

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Permanent disability rating2
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Oakland 3
• Santa Barbara 3
• Santa Rosa 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Marina del Rey 1
• San Francisco 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 11 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record
• 1 for the applicant

Counted over 13 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.

• ADJ21458754 · 2026-03-03 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6With these principles in mind, we observe that the process by which a party may seek the issuance of a panel of QMEs is addressed in Rule 30 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 30). Rule 30 requires that represented parties submit a request for a panel of QMEs electronically to the DWC Medical Unit, and that they identify the following elements:

  The panel request was valid despite an incorrect date of injury because it contained the correct claim number, which is the primary identifier for a QME panel request under Rule 30. The Appeals Board emphasized substance over form and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the date error.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17943105 · 2026-01-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6injuries, applicant was not forthcoming. On June 17, 2023, applicant sought emergency treatment and requested a spine MRI, however on physical examination applicant's back was normal. Eventually, applicant self-procured lumbar spine x-rays and an MRI which were reviewed by his primary treating physician but no further action was indicated by him. Applicant also complained of left side testicle pain, however, Dr. Alchemy referred him to his primary care physician for it and per applicant he treated for it non-industrially including surgical intervention. There is simply no evidence in the record of industrial navel pain/left testicle injury. Significantly, AME, Dr. Marino only found injury to applicant's left ankle, and we are bound to make our findings based on the medical evidence. Hence, applicant did not prove any industrial injury to his neck, back, chest, shoulders nor navel pain/left testicle.

  No substantial medical evidence supports industrial injury to body parts other than the left ankle; AME Dr. Marino found injury only to the left ankle.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16740659 · 2024-10-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11Next, the parties dispute whether applicant's injury to the low back was industrial. No doctor has provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back. At one point, the QME concludes that there is no way to answer that question. The QME failed to adequately explain how and why he was incapable of answering the question. It further appears that the QME failed to consider the proper legal standard of causation in workers' compensation, which is contributory causation. The September 13, 2022 injury need not be the sole cause of injury to the low back. It is sufficient if the September 13, 2022 injury aggravated or exacerbated prior injury to the low back.

  No doctor provided a clear causation opinion for lumbar spine injury. The QME's equivocal testimony requires further development for credibility determinations. The record is insufficient to determine industrial injury to lumbar spine.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ16740659 · 2024-08-13 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Next, the parties dispute whether applicant's injury to the low back was industrial. No doctor has provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back. At one point, the QME concludes that there is no way to answer that question. The QME failed to adequately explain how and why he was incapable of answering the question. It further appears that the QME failed to consider the proper legal standard of causation in workers' compensation, which is contributory causation. The September 13, 2022 injury need not be the sole cause of injury to the low back. It is sufficient if the September 13, 2022 injury aggravated or exacerbated prior injury to the low back.

  No doctor provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back; QME equivocated and failed to apply proper legal standard; record development required.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17943105 · 2026-07-20 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed two Petitions for Reconsideration, one on May 6, 2026 and one on June 8, 2026, apparently in response to two separate Orders Denying Petition for Change of Venue issued on April 9, 2026 and on May 7, 2026 by the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ). Applicant asserts in both Petitions that he disagrees with the decisions of the WCJ at the Santa Rosa District Office and that he wants his case transferred to the Oakland District Office. We have not received an answer from defendant. The PWCJ filed a Report and Recommendation (Report) recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration be dismissed, or in the alternative if treated as a Petition for Removal, it be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition and the contents of the PWCJ’s Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsiderations, treat the Petitions as ones for removal and deny both Petitions. BACKGROUND We will briefly review the relevant facts. Applicant sustained injury to his left ankle while employed by defendant as a production worker on June 7, 2023.

  The petitions challenged interlocutory orders denying change of venue, which are not final orders subject to reconsideration, and the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal. The petitions were therefore dismissed or denied accordingly.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20630134 · 2026-03-17 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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

  The Appeals Board found that defendant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18181493 · 2025-10-14 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on July 11, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Tuesday, August 5, 2025 to file a timely petition. EAMS reflects that defendant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on August 5, 2025 at "18:32" (i.e., 6:32 p.m.). Therefore, it was deemed untimely filed on August 6, 2025 and will be dismissed.

  The petition was filed after 5:00 p.m. on the last permissible day, so it was deemed filed the next court day and thus untimely.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16406595 · 2024-12-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to petitioner if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition for removal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18176659 · 2024-08-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13021561 · 2024-06-14 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.445 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. As relevant here, the WCJ issued two interlocutory orders: (1) Setting the matter for trial; and (2) Staying medical-legal discovery, except as to chiropractic, pending the outcome of the trial.

  The petition was dismissed because the WCJ's pre-trial conference orders were interlocutory and not final orders, thus not subject to reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16406595 · 2024-02-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17299509 · 2023-08-07 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and/or Alternatively Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The petition was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

  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. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY
• National Casualty Company
• NATIONAL CASUALTY

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.