Service American Indemnity Company

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 3
• Oakland 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.

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

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ18926429 · 2026-04-27 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Applicant claimed injury to her bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, back, knees, arms, and shoulders, while employed as a customer service representative/billing representative by defendant TalentBurst, Inc. from June 6, 2022 to December 26, 2023. Defendant denies injury AOE/COE.

  The WCJ found insufficient substantial medical evidence on causation and ordered further development of the record with supplemental QME reporting; the Appeals Board upheld this and denied reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16741292 · 2025-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Defendant contends that applicant did not sustain an amputation hence is not eligible for the exception to the 104 week rule because the portion of the finger that was amputated was re- attached. I disagree with defendant's position.

  The applicant sustained an amputation of part of his left index finger despite replantation surgery, which qualifies for the extended temporary disability benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c). Medical evidence from Dr. Chen and Dr. Jamasbi supports that the applicant is totally temporarily disabled and entitled to benefits.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ15406201 · 2024-04-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendants Enki Medical Services and Service American Indemnity Company, administered by LWP Claims Solutions, seek reconsideration of the February 5, 2024 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her circulatory system and other body systems resulting in her death.

  The WCAB granted reconsideration to further study whether the death inference applies and whether the record supports Dr. Markowitz's opinion on causation, deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15406201 · 2024-08-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendants Enki Medical Services and Service American Indemnity Company, administered by LWP Claims Solutions, petition for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on February 5, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her circulatory system and other body systems resulting in her death.

  The Board granted reconsideration to study the issues and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings on the Compromise and Release.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15138599 · 2022-08-03 · Van Nuys 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.

  The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate 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 →

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.

• Service American Indemnity Company
• SERVICE AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY
• Service American Indemnity Co.

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.