Security National Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 13
• Los Angeles 5
• San Francisco 4
• Santa Ana 4
• Bakersfield 3
• Marina del Rey 2
• Pomona 2
• Sacramento 2
• Eureka 1
• Fresno 1
• Lodi 1
• Oakland 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.

• 19 for the defense
• 16 for the applicant
• 7 returned for more record

Counted over 38 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.

• ADJ9600339 · 2026-06-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on December 6, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant, while employed by defendant, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE)1 to various body parts; and that defendant did not deny medical treatment to applicant.

  The Board found that defendant's refusal to authorize treatment with Dr. Patterson, a physician employed by Casa Colina listed in the MPN, constituted an unreasonable denial of medical treatment under Labor Code section 4600 and related regulations and precedent cases Rivas and Montiel.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13021836 · 2026-06-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration by defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period. In Case No. ADJ20509813, the WCJ found that applicant sustained

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to the excretory and reproductive systems during various employment periods, but the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on settlement approval.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10300370 · 2026-04-27 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) In accordance with that mandate, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the record and decision on the issue of industrial injury to the neck. We believe that this case would be best served by the appointment of an independent medical evaluator pursuant to Labor Code section 5701, and thus the WCJ should issue an order for the appointment of a Labor Code section 5701 doctor upon return of this case. Since any industrial neck injury may

  The record was found insufficient and the case was remanded for further development including appointment of an independent medical evaluator to determine industrial injury to the neck.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14646082 · 2026-03-24 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8It is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) To constitute substantial evidence "...a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) "Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories. Medical opinion also fails to support the Board's findings if it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess." (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93].)

  Dr. Welborn's medical opinions were found speculative and not substantial evidence to deny injury AOE/COE to the left shoulder and right upper extremity body parts; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ14478546 · 2026-03-09 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, the WCJ's February 2, 2023 findings did not comply with the requirement in section 5313 that the WCJ "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy." (Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(c)(5); Blackledge, supra, 75 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621.) In the 2023 proceeding, there were multiple body parts framed as issues for trial, including the left lower extremity, left leg, left ankle, and lumbar spine. The 2023 FA&O, however, only addressed injury to applicant's left lower extremity, left leg, and left ankle, and was silent as to injury to the lumbar spine. That is, the 2023 F&A included no finding regarding the additional body part of lumbar spine at issue here. Moreover, under Award in the F&A, it stated that "All other issues are deferred at this time." Thus, although the body part was listed as an issue in the minutes of hearing, and discussed in the Opinion on Decision, the issue was not actually "decided on the merits," as required. (Pacific Lumber, Co., supra, 37 Cal.4th 921, 943.)

  The WCJ's 2023 Findings and Award did not address lumbar spine injury, leaving that issue undecided and not final, so reconsideration was improper on that issue; continuing jurisdiction under Labor Code section 5410 and good cause under section 5803 allow reopening for new and further disability or compensable consequence injury.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11368321 · 2026-01-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.93. We will amend the F&A as recommended by the WCJ in the Report to correct clerical error in a date so temporary disability runs from May 11, 2018, to May 10, 2020, less credit for days worked.

  The Board granted reconsideration to correct the temporary disability period to run from May 11, 2018, to May 10, 2020, less credit for days worked, based on the WCJ's Report and the Petition.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ9935791 · 2025-12-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we rescind the F&O, substitute a new Findings of Fact that finds that a contested claim existed at the time lien claimant provided its services and that it should be paid for its services, but we defer the amount and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The Board found that a contested claim existed at the time the lien claimant provided services, and that the services were reasonable and necessary, thus entitlement to payment was established. The amount owed was deferred for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ19039281 · 2025-10-28 · San Bernardino District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Additionally, the WCJ's decision to invalidate panel number 7774203 to the extent it was not properly served is consistent with WCAB Rule 10625, which states in relevant part:

  The panel number 7774203 was invalidated because the claim number used was incorrect and the panel was not properly served, consistent with regulatory requirements and precedent.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13021836 · 2025-09-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) seeks reconsideration of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period.

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to applicant's excretory and reproductive systems for specific and cumulative trauma periods, supported by credible testimony and medical evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently explained and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19947925 · 2025-05-19 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March 12, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant is not entitled to a new primary treating physician (PTP) as both the original PTP, Robert Innocenzi, D.O, in a report dated October 15, 2015, and panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME), Armin Visteh, M.D., in a report dated July 20, 2023, found that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) with no need for future medical care.

  Applicant contends entitlement to change PTP or seek second opinion within MPN; original PTP and PQME found MMI with no further treatment needed; reconsideration granted to further study legal and factual issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10991851 · 2025-04-03 · Marina del Rey District OfficeStatute of limitationsdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.6In this case, the WCJ did not determine when applicant (1) had knowledge sufficient to establish that she either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that her disability was caused by her employment; and (2) first suffered disability based upon medical evidence indicating when the cumulative effect of her injury ripened into disability. (See Lab. Code, § 5412; see also Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. 221 Cal.App.4th 1116 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257].

  The WCJ did not make the necessary factual determinations to establish the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury, so the issue was deferred for further development.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10053711 · 2025-02-24 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.243. Request to Modify the PD Award based on Dr. Greenspan As explained above and in the November 25, 2024 opinion on decision, the findings and award contained in the August 30, 2022 Third Amended Findings and Award are now final, and will not be modified or reopened based on a revisiting of previously-admitted or available evidence, While that finality does not serve to negate the provisions of the final findings and award that ce1iain credits were to be adjusted by and between the parties and applied to the award of temporary disability benefits, it does mean that the award cannot be modified with respect to the underlying determination of permanent disability based upon one physician over another, in this case Dr. Newton over Dr. Greenspan. To alter or amend the now-final findings and award more than five years after the date of injury would violate Labor Code § 5804, which states that "[n]o award of compensation shall be rescinded, altered, or amended after five years from the date of the injury except upon a petition by a party in interest filed within such five years and any counterpetition seeking other relief filed by the adverse party within 30 days of the original petition raising issues in addition to those raised by such original petition."

  The panel held that the permanent disability award based on Dr. Newton's opinion is final and cannot be modified or reopened, denying the request to replace it with Dr. Greenspan's opinion.

  Official decision · page 24 →

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.

• SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• Security National Insurance Company
• SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE
• Security National Insurance
• SECURITY NATIONAL

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.