Self-insured Schools of California

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Permanent disability rating2
• Statute of limitations1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Bakersfield 5
• Santa Barbara 3
• Oxnard 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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 6 for the defense
• 2 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 10 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.

Decisions

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

• ADJ9400358 · 2026-03-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order (F&O) issued on June 7, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that Labor Code section 54051 time-barred applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits thereby resulting in him taking nothing from his claims filed herein.

  The WCJ found the claim time-barred under section 5405, but the WCAB found the record insufficient to determine the last date of employer-provided medical treatment to toll the statute of limitations and remanded for further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12059744 · 2023-02-17 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Order and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 6, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical spine, left shoulder, and elbow; and that the injury caused 28% permanent disability.

  The WCJ and panel found QME Dr. Newton's reports to be substantial evidence, well-reasoned and more persuasive than PTP Dr. Sall's conflicting opinions, supporting the finding of injury AOE/COE to cervical spine, left shoulder, and elbow.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11111045 · 2022-08-12 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. We further note that, while there is evidence of low back impairment, the evidence preponderates against a specific low back injury as the cause.

  The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and the evidence preponderates against a specific low back injury as the cause of Petitioner's symptoms. The medical opinions of QME Dr. Darakjian, supported by diagnostic testing and examination, found no objective evidence of lumbar injury causally related to the industrial accident, while Dr. Scheinberg's opinions were inconsistent and speculative.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10374813 · 2022-01-11 · Bakersfield District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3In this case, we note that in his Opinion on Decision and in his Report, the WCJ relies solely upon the Hikida principle to disallow apportionment. The WCJ rejected the apportionment opinion of Dr. Hanley, the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), who opined in his June 13, 2018 report that up to 90% of applicant's permanent disability is caused by non-industrial other factors (degenerative arthritis, etc.) under Labor Code section 4663. (Joint exhibit 3.) According to the WCJ, all of applicant's permanent disability was caused by the right knee replacement surgery that unfortunately produced a poor result.

  The WCJ's original disallowance of apportionment based on Hikida was reconsidered in light of the narrower application of Hikida clarified by Justice, requiring further proceedings to determine permanent disability and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ7243550 · 2024-05-20 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Removal of the Order continuing the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) of January 4, 2024, to February 8, 2024 because the pre-trial conference statement filed for the hearing only contained applicant attorney's signature.

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to applicant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9752471 · 2023-11-15 · Oxnard 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 demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if a final adverse decision issued.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11177542 · 2023-06-19 · Santa Barbara 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.

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy if final adverse decision issued.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8292326 · 2021-08-24 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration was filed without proof of service on all adverse parties as required by Labor Code1 section 5905. (Lab. Code, § 5905; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(c); 10625.) Petitioner failed to serve applicant, applicant's attorney, and the other lien claimants on the Official Address Record, including Duran Interpreting Services, which provided services during the disputed treatment of applicant by petitioner.

  Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed because it was filed without proof of service on all adverse parties as required by law, and the petitioner failed to cure the defective service despite being alerted to it.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9445557 · 2021-08-10 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On January 14, 2021, defendant filed a Petition for Removal with respect to a December 31, 2020 Notice of Hearing setting this matter for trial before workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) Scott Seiden. Defendant also sought to disqualify WCJ Seiden. This matter was tried before WCJ Seiden on February 24, 2021 and a Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued on May 24, 2021. No party challenged the F&A on reconsideration. As a result, defendant's Petition for Removal and Disqualification has been rendered moot and will be dismissed.

  The petition was rendered moot by the trial and Findings of Fact and Award issued without challenge on reconsideration.

  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. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA
• SELF INSURED GROUP
• Self-Insured Schools of California
• Self Insured Schools of California
• Self Insured Schools

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.