California WCABInsurance carrier

Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program

Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program is named as an insurance carrier in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Temporary disability (3), Apportionment (1) and Earnings / average weekly earnings (1). Defense most often ran through Stockwell Harris (3). The employer appearing most often is Closet Factory San Carlos (1). The office that heard the most of them is Marina del Rey.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 6

What they litigate

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

Who defends them

10 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Whose claims they run

Closet Factory San Carlos1
Dependable Care Ambulance INC.1
Nova Container Freight Station1
Palm Desert Doors and Hardware1
Peterberg Construction, INC.1
The Crossings at Carlsbad1

Where they appear

Marina del Rey 2
Pomona 1
San Diego 1
San Francisco 1
Santa Ana 1
Van Nuys 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.

3 for the defense
3 returned for more record
1 for the applicant

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.

ADJ8349042 · 2024-09-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeSerious and willful misconductremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the August 30, 2022 Findings and Order ("F&O"), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that defendant employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code sections 4553 and 4553.1.2 Applicant contends the WCJ erred because the evidence establishes that (1) Victor Ortega was a managing representative under the meaning of section 4553.1, and (2) applicant established violations of two separate safety orders pursuant to that same code section.
The Appeals Board found that Victor Ortega was a managing representative under section 4553.1, contrary to the WCJ's prior finding, and remanded for further development on whether the removal of the guard was a proximate cause of injury, which could establish serious and willful misconduct.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11064901 · 2022-05-16 · San Diego District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.12The record indicates that applicant had work restrictions for both her right arm and back (i.e., for each specific injury) toward the end of 2017. However, we cannot determine based on the current record if the entire period during which she was paid temporary disability either by EDD or defendant for the April 28, 2017 injury (ADJ11064890) overlaps with period(s) during which she also had work restrictions with respect to the August 24, 2017 injury (ADJ11064901). Consequently, we will rescind the F&A and return this matter for further development of the record regarding whether the periods of temporary disability for the two injuries overlap.
The record was insufficient to determine if the periods of temporary disability for the two injuries overlapped, which affects the 104 compensable week cap for aggregate temporary disability payments. The WCAB rescinded the F&A and remanded for further development of the record on this issue.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ9105321 · 2022-03-28 · Pomona District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, the petitioner is only challenging interlocutory findings/orders in the decision regarding development of the record and the recalculation of average weekly earnings. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.) Solely for the sake of clarifying that the WCJ did not make any final finding as to the issue of earnings, we will amend Findings of Fact 2 from "[t]he parties are ordered to adjust the applicant's pay to accurately capture unpaid overtime" to "The issues of average weekly earnings and temporary disability are deferred and returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The parties are ordered to adjust the calculation of average weekly earnings, the temporary disability indemnity rate, and penalties and interest, if any. Jurisdiction is reserved at the trial level if there is any dispute.
The WCAB clarified that the issues of average weekly earnings and temporary disability are deferred and returned to the trial level for further proceedings, indicating no final order on these issues.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ19358226 · 2024-12-16 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
Petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal; reconsideration deemed adequate remedy; petition denied.
Official decision · page 3 →

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.

PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY
Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program

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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

3 for the defense

3 returned for more record

1 for the applicant

Decisions

Newest decisions this insurance carrier is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ8349042 · 2024-09-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeSerious and willful misconductremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the August 30, 2022 Findings and Order ("F&O"), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that defendant employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code sections 4553 and 4553.1.2 Applicant contends the WCJ erred because the evidence establishes that (1) Victor Ortega was a managing representative under the meaning of section 4553.1, and (2) applicant established violations of two separate safety orders pursuant to that same code section.

The Appeals Board found that Victor Ortega was a managing representative under section 4553.1, contrary to the WCJ's prior finding, and remanded for further development on whether the removal of the guard was a proximate cause of injury, which could establish serious and willful misconduct.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11064901 · 2022-05-16 · San Diego District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.12The record indicates that applicant had work restrictions for both her right arm and back (i.e., for each specific injury) toward the end of 2017. However, we cannot determine based on the current record if the entire period during which she was paid temporary disability either by EDD or defendant for the April 28, 2017 injury (ADJ11064890) overlaps with period(s) during which she also had work restrictions with respect to the August 24, 2017 injury (ADJ11064901). Consequently, we will rescind the F&A and return this matter for further development of the record regarding whether the periods of temporary disability for the two injuries overlap.

The record was insufficient to determine if the periods of temporary disability for the two injuries overlapped, which affects the 104 compensable week cap for aggregate temporary disability payments. The WCAB rescinded the F&A and remanded for further development of the record on this issue.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ9105321 · 2022-03-28 · Pomona District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, the petitioner is only challenging interlocutory findings/orders in the decision regarding development of the record and the recalculation of average weekly earnings. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.) Solely for the sake of clarifying that the WCJ did not make any final finding as to the issue of earnings, we will amend Findings of Fact 2 from "[t]he parties are ordered to adjust the applicant's pay to accurately capture unpaid overtime" to "The issues of average weekly earnings and temporary disability are deferred and returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The parties are ordered to adjust the calculation of average weekly earnings, the temporary disability indemnity rate, and penalties and interest, if any. Jurisdiction is reserved at the trial level if there is any dispute.

The WCAB clarified that the issues of average weekly earnings and temporary disability are deferred and returned to the trial level for further proceedings, indicating no final order on these issues.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ19358226 · 2024-12-16 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

Petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal; reconsideration deemed adequate remedy; petition denied.

Official decision · page 3 →