Sentry Casualty 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

• Riverside 3
• Santa Rosa 3
• Anaheim 2
• Los Angeles 2
• San Diego 2
• Van Nuys 2
• 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.

• 8 for the defense
• 5 returned for more record
• 4 for the applicant

Counted over 15 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.

• ADJ15838301 · 2025-12-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (FF&O) issued on September 9, 2025 by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), 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 head, neck, and back, that there has not been a change of circumstances shown regarding the applicant's need for continued care at Casa Colina at this time, and ordered defendant to pay Casa Colina for applicant's ongoing medical care after July 24, 2024, in an amount to be adjusted by the parties, with jurisdiction reserved.

  The WCJ found no change in circumstances regarding the applicant's need for continued care, supported by Dr. Patterson's opinion, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13090134 · 2025-08-14 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6The Findings of Fact issued on May 15, 2025, finding, in relevant part, that applicant was a joint employee of Paradies. (Finding of Fact, at p. 1, § 2.) The concurrently issued Opinion on Decision explains that the issue of joint employment was relevant because Zinder were uninsured for workers' compensation coverage at the time of the injury. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 26.) Focusing on the extent to which Paradies had the right to control applicant's behavior, the WCJ found that although Paradies had no direct communication with applicant, it exerted control over her through Zinder. (Id. at pp. 27§ 28.) The WCJ also found that the cleaning services provided

  The WCJ found Paradies Lagardere to be a joint employer based on control factors and rejected the business-to-business exception, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits and applicable law.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9840500 · 2024-05-10 · Anaheim District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13Dr. Levy's Medical Reports Applicant is of the opinion that Dr. Levy's reports are not substantial evidence. The applicant believes that Dr. Levy's medical report denies due process to a non-English speaking injured worker. The Appeals Court determined that 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).) A medical report is not substantial evidence unless it offers the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions. (Dr. does not state that 50 percent apportionment would be reasonable partially due to the normal progress of the preexisting injury). (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 33 Cal. Comp. Cases 647) Dr. Levy was the PQME for internal medicine. He authored eight (8) reports. He took a detailed history. He reviewed several medical reports, diagnostic tests and performed a comprehensive examination of the applicant throughout his medical reporting. Dr. Levy reviewed

  The medical reports of Dr. Levy and Dr. Mehta were found to be substantial evidence based on thorough examinations, detailed histories, and well-reasoned opinions.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ11757093 · 2024-05-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on February 8, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his lower back on November 10, 2018.

  The WCJ's denial of industrial causation was based on reliance on PQME Dr. Sherman's reports and applicant's non-credible testimony; the WCAB found Dr. Sherman's opinions inconsistent, speculative, and not substantial evidence, and granted reconsideration for further medical development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17444677 · 2024-03-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The crux of petitioner's argument is that the undersigned WCJ should have relied upon Dr. Bell's QME reports instead of Dr. McCoy's QME reports because Dr. Bell's reports constitute substantial medical evidence and Dr. McCoy's do not. Petition, page 1, lines 24 thru 26; page 2, lines] thru 2. However, Petitioner incorrectly states that the undersigned WCJ found Dr. Bell's reports "non substantial medical evidence with regard to causation." Petition, page 4, lines 19 thru 23. There was no such finding by the WCJ. The undersigned WCJ only found Dr. McCoy's reporting to be more persuasive than Dr. Bell's reporting, not that Dr. Bell's reporting was not substantial medical evidence.

  The WCJ found Dr. McCoy's medical reports to be substantial medical evidence and more persuasive than Dr. Bell's reports, supporting the apportionment and permanent disability findings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12893727 · 2021-08-24 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.34. Petitioner contends that the WCJ erred in: a) Finding that the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the period of May 22, 2020, through the present: and b) Finding that the applicant was entitled to continuing temporary total disability benefits.

  The WCJ's finding that the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from May 22, 2020, to the present and continuing is supported by credible testimony, medical evidence, and legal precedent, including the failure of the defendant to offer modified work when the applicant was released to modified duty.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12548158 · 2021-06-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the record does not contain substantial evidence pertaining to a threshold issue. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; see McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) We are returning this matter to the WCJ for the parties to develop the record so that it contains substantial evidence to support a determination of whether applicant's VKHD constitutes an injury AOE/COE. Under the circumstances of this matter, we recommend the parties have applicant evaluated by an internal medicine infectious disease/immunology AME or in the alternative that the WCJ appoint a regular physician of that specialty. (Lab. Code, § 5701.)

  The record lacked substantial evidence to determine if applicant's VKHD was caused by her employment; the matter was remanded for further development including evaluation by an immunologist or infectious disease specialist.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10102441 · 2025-12-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10955, a petition for removal must be filed within 20 days after the service of the order or decision, or of the occurrence of the action in issue. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the Petition for Removal was filed on October 15, 2025, however, the Order was served on May 6, 2025. Including five days for mailing (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605), the petition should have been filed on or before June 2, 2025. As the petition is untimely, the petition will be dismissed.

  The petition for removal was filed on October 15, 2025, which was untimely as the order was served on May 6, 2025, and the petition should have been filed on or before June 2, 2025, including mailing time.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20774534 · 2025-10-10 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we treat the Petition as one seeking reconsideration, dismiss the Petition as premature, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ treat the Petition as a petition to set aside, including setting a hearing to allow the parties to provide evidence and create a record upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ. After the WCJ issues a decision, any aggrieved person may then timely seek reconsideration of that decision.

  The Petition for Reconsideration was premature because the record was insufficient to evaluate whether good cause existed to set aside the OACR; the matter should be returned to the WCJ for further proceedings and record development.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ17359167 · 2024-05-24 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Order Denying Petition for Dismissal (Order) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 7, 2024.

  The WCJ order denying petition for dismissal was a non-final order not determining substantive rights or threshold issues, so reconsideration was improper; removal was denied as petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11209032 · 2024-03-18 · Riverside 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, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11305432 · 2023-05-25 · 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 →

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.

• SENTRY INSURANCE
• SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY
• Sentry Casualty Company
• Sentry Insurance
• Sentry Casualty Insurance Company
• Sentry Insurance Company
• SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY

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.