California WCABInsurance carrier

Republic Indemnity Company of California

Republic Indemnity Company of California is named as an insurance carrier in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2006–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Liens (2) and Statute of limitations (2). Defense most often ran through Haworth, Bradshaw, Stallknecht & Barber, INC. (2). The employer appearing most often is Oa Logistics Services, INC. (2). The office that heard the most of them is Oakland.

Decisions: 13
Years: 2006–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 9

What they litigate

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

Who defends them

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

Whose claims they run

Oa Logistics Services, INC.2
A-1 MacHine Manufacturing1
Aqua Construction, INC.1
Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn1
Dahdoul Textiles, INC.1
Fish Market Restaurant1
JCR Industries INC.1
Perry S. Larkspur LLC1
Santiago Communities, INC.1
Upm1

Where they appear

Oakland 2
Redding 2
San Bernardino 2
Van Nuys 2
Marina del Rey 1
Pomona 1
San Diego 1
San Francisco 1
Santa Rosa 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.

6 for the applicant
5 for the defense

Counted over 10 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.

ADJ9903090 · 2026-04-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8Given the above circumstances, we conclude that the arbitration proceedings as conducted violated Avo's right to due process. More significantly, the F&O was intentionally not served on Avo's. This was not disputed by the parties. Given that this is in clear contravention to section 5277(a), which requires service on all parties, the F&O is void ab initio and must be vacated.
The arbitration Findings and Order was void ab initio due to failure to serve Avo's, a necessary party, violating due process and Labor Code section 5277(a). The WCJ lacked jurisdiction to vacate the order, so the WCAB vacated it and returned the matter for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ19757339 · 2025-10-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that pursuant to AD Rule 10205.6(b), a strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel must be made via first class mail, absent agreement of the parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10205.6(b).) The WCJ found that WCAB Rule 10625(b)(2), does not apply to permit electronic service of a QME strike. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)(2).)
The Board found that Labor Code section 4062.2 requires only timely notification of opposing counsel to exercise a QME strike, not formal service by mail or electronic service rules.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18880902 · 2024-11-01 · Oakland District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5In any event, these are the undisputed facts before us: 1) on July 25, 2024, defendant stipulated that it will adjust, negotiate, or litigate any timely filed lien; 2) the parties stipulated that no liens were known as of July 25, 2024, when they signed the settlement documents; 3) no lien was filed when the OACR issued on July 26, 2024; 4) per the OACR, the WCJ found that there were no liens of record; and 5) DCSS filed a lien on August 5, 2024, pursuant to section 4903(e). Based on the foregoing, the lien filed on August 5, 2024, is defendant's responsibility per Paragraph 8 of the C&R. To the extent that defendant and DCSS are unable to adjust or negotiate the lien at issue, either party may file a Declaration of Readiness now that the case-in-chief has been resolved.
The C&R stipulated that defendant would adjust, negotiate, or litigate any timely filed lien, and no lien was of record at the time of the OACR. The DCSS lien was filed after the OACR, so it is defendant's responsibility per the C&R, not grounds to set aside the OACR.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ13290788 · 2022-04-15 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.53. Applicant's testimony that he reported a January 1, 2007 injury to the employer is not credible. During the March 9, 2021 trial, applicant testified that he did not report the January 1, 2007 injury. During the November 9, 2021 trial, applicant initially testified that he reported the January 1, 2007 injury but subsequently admitted that he was confused about whether he reported any injury in 2007.
Applicant's testimony that he reported the injury was not credible. Employer had no notice and thus no obligation to provide a claim form or notice. The statute of limitations was not tolled and the claim is barred.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ13518613 · 2022-01-25 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, issued by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on November 23, 2021, wherein we rescinded the April 13, 2021 Findings and Order and substituted a new Findings and Order, finding that on January 30, 2020, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her low back including lumbar radiculopathy to her left leg, and deferring all other issues regarding the injury.
The Board found substantial evidence that the applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her low back including lumbar radiculopathy to her left leg, rejecting the defense argument that the injury was not work-related based on the QME report and pre-existing condition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13518613 · 2021-11-23 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and substitute a new Findings and Order, finding that on January 30, 2020, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her low back including lumbar radiculopathy to her left leg, and deferring all other issues regarding the January 30, 2020 injury; and we will return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings as appropriate.
Substantial evidence from applicant's and witness testimony and medical reports supports injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine including lumbar radiculopathy to left leg; Dr. Carpenter's contrary opinion was not substantial evidence due to lack of explanation and failure to address aggravation of pre-existing condition; treating physicians' opinions credited.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11652399 · 2021-02-25 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We further add that defendant's burden of proving the knowledge component of Labor Code Section 5412 is not met merely by showing that the employee knew he had some symptoms. (Chambers v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 556, 559 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 722]; Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Rotondo) (1950) 34 Cal.2d 726, 729 (15 Cal.Comp.Cases 37).) These principles were discussed by the appellate court in City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 53].) In the Johnson case applicant formed the belief more than one year before he filed his application for workers' compensation benefits that his cardiac problems were work related. The Appeals Board and appellate court concluded that applicant did not have the requisite knowledge of an industrial injury even though he believed his cardiac symptoms were caused by his work:
Applicant did not have the requisite knowledge of an industrial injury until advised by a physician; no evidence applicant had specialized medical knowledge; missed work days before claim filing were not compensable disability without contemporaneous medical evidence; recommended work restrictions were not indicative of permanent disability as defendant did not accommodate them.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11276804 · 2021-02-23 · San Bernardino District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) and the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration, and we will affirm the F&A except that we will amend the F&A to find that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period beginning October 30, 2017, to and including November 8, 2019, and that applicant has received temporary disability indemnity during the period from October 30, 2017, through May 11, 2019, (Finding of
Applicant was temporarily totally disabled due to the September 28, 2017 injury until November 8, 2019, and is entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits beyond the previously awarded period, up to 104 weeks from October 30, 2017.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ3455035 · 2025-04-11 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant in pro per, filed a Petition for Reconsideration on September 22, 2022. In the Petition, it appears that applicant seeks reimbursement for the cost of self-incurred medical bills as a result of his industrial injuries.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was not filed in response to a final order, decision, or award, as required by Labor Code section 5900(a) and related case law.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13875562 · 2023-05-22 · San Diego 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 the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
2006-eb-4 · 2006-06-21 · San Francisco District OfficeOther disputed issuemixed
Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the relevant statutory and case law, we hold that the revised 11
The Appeals Board held that the revised permanent disability rating schedule applies to injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2005, and to injuries prior to that date unless exceptions in section 4660(d) apply, reversing the WCJ's contrary conclusion.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA
Republic Indemnity Company of California
REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
REPUBLIC INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
Republic Indemnity Company of America
REPUBLIC INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA
Republic Indemnity of California

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 →

Republic Indemnity Company of California

Decisions

Years

2006–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the applicant

5 for the defense

Decisions

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

ADJ9903090 · 2026-04-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8Given the above circumstances, we conclude that the arbitration proceedings as conducted violated Avo's right to due process. More significantly, the F&O was intentionally not served on Avo's. This was not disputed by the parties. Given that this is in clear contravention to section 5277(a), which requires service on all parties, the F&O is void ab initio and must be vacated.

The arbitration Findings and Order was void ab initio due to failure to serve Avo's, a necessary party, violating due process and Labor Code section 5277(a). The WCJ lacked jurisdiction to vacate the order, so the WCAB vacated it and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ19757339 · 2025-10-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that pursuant to AD Rule 10205.6(b), a strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel must be made via first class mail, absent agreement of the parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10205.6(b).) The WCJ found that WCAB Rule 10625(b)(2), does not apply to permit electronic service of a QME strike. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)(2).)

The Board found that Labor Code section 4062.2 requires only timely notification of opposing counsel to exercise a QME strike, not formal service by mail or electronic service rules.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18880902 · 2024-11-01 · Oakland District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5In any event, these are the undisputed facts before us: 1) on July 25, 2024, defendant stipulated that it will adjust, negotiate, or litigate any timely filed lien; 2) the parties stipulated that no liens were known as of July 25, 2024, when they signed the settlement documents; 3) no lien was filed when the OACR issued on July 26, 2024; 4) per the OACR, the WCJ found that there were no liens of record; and 5) DCSS filed a lien on August 5, 2024, pursuant to section 4903(e). Based on the foregoing, the lien filed on August 5, 2024, is defendant's responsibility per Paragraph 8 of the C&R. To the extent that defendant and DCSS are unable to adjust or negotiate the lien at issue, either party may file a Declaration of Readiness now that the case-in-chief has been resolved.

The C&R stipulated that defendant would adjust, negotiate, or litigate any timely filed lien, and no lien was of record at the time of the OACR. The DCSS lien was filed after the OACR, so it is defendant's responsibility per the C&R, not grounds to set aside the OACR.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ13290788 · 2022-04-15 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.53. Applicant's testimony that he reported a January 1, 2007 injury to the employer is not credible. During the March 9, 2021 trial, applicant testified that he did not report the January 1, 2007 injury. During the November 9, 2021 trial, applicant initially testified that he reported the January 1, 2007 injury but subsequently admitted that he was confused about whether he reported any injury in 2007.

Applicant's testimony that he reported the injury was not credible. Employer had no notice and thus no obligation to provide a claim form or notice. The statute of limitations was not tolled and the claim is barred.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ13518613 · 2022-01-25 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, issued by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on November 23, 2021, wherein we rescinded the April 13, 2021 Findings and Order and substituted a new Findings and Order, finding that on January 30, 2020, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her low back including lumbar radiculopathy to her left leg, and deferring all other issues regarding the injury.

The Board found substantial evidence that the applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her low back including lumbar radiculopathy to her left leg, rejecting the defense argument that the injury was not work-related based on the QME report and pre-existing condition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13518613 · 2021-11-23 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and substitute a new Findings and Order, finding that on January 30, 2020, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her low back including lumbar radiculopathy to her left leg, and deferring all other issues regarding the January 30, 2020 injury; and we will return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings as appropriate.

Substantial evidence from applicant's and witness testimony and medical reports supports injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine including lumbar radiculopathy to left leg; Dr. Carpenter's contrary opinion was not substantial evidence due to lack of explanation and failure to address aggravation of pre-existing condition; treating physicians' opinions credited.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11652399 · 2021-02-25 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We further add that defendant's burden of proving the knowledge component of Labor Code Section 5412 is not met merely by showing that the employee knew he had some symptoms. (Chambers v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 556, 559 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 722]; Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Rotondo) (1950) 34 Cal.2d 726, 729 (15 Cal.Comp.Cases 37).) These principles were discussed by the appellate court in City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 53].) In the Johnson case applicant formed the belief more than one year before he filed his application for workers' compensation benefits that his cardiac problems were work related. The Appeals Board and appellate court concluded that applicant did not have the requisite knowledge of an industrial injury even though he believed his cardiac symptoms were caused by his work:

Applicant did not have the requisite knowledge of an industrial injury until advised by a physician; no evidence applicant had specialized medical knowledge; missed work days before claim filing were not compensable disability without contemporaneous medical evidence; recommended work restrictions were not indicative of permanent disability as defendant did not accommodate them.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11276804 · 2021-02-23 · San Bernardino District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) and the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration, and we will affirm the F&A except that we will amend the F&A to find that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period beginning October 30, 2017, to and including November 8, 2019, and that applicant has received temporary disability indemnity during the period from October 30, 2017, through May 11, 2019, (Finding of

Applicant was temporarily totally disabled due to the September 28, 2017 injury until November 8, 2019, and is entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits beyond the previously awarded period, up to 104 weeks from October 30, 2017.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ3455035 · 2025-04-11 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant in pro per, filed a Petition for Reconsideration on September 22, 2022. In the Petition, it appears that applicant seeks reimbursement for the cost of self-incurred medical bills as a result of his industrial injuries.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was not filed in response to a final order, decision, or award, as required by Labor Code section 5900(a) and related case law.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13875562 · 2023-05-22 · San Diego 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 the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

2006-eb-4 · 2006-06-21 · San Francisco District OfficeOther disputed issuemixed

Determinative passage · p.2Based on our review of the relevant statutory and case law, we hold that the revised 11

The Appeals Board held that the revised permanent disability rating schedule applies to injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2005, and to injuries prior to that date unless exceptions in section 4660(d) apply, reversing the WCJ's contrary conclusion.

Official decision · page 2 →

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.

REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Republic Indemnity Company of California

REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA

REPUBLIC INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

Republic Indemnity Company of America

REPUBLIC INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA

Republic Indemnity of California