California WCABInsurance carrier
Starr Specialty Insurance Company
Starr Specialty Insurance Company is named as an insurance carrier in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Jurisdiction / venue (1) and Sanctions under Labor Code §5813 (1). Defense most often ran through EM Legal (2). The employer appearing most often is Partners Personnel Management Services, LLC (4). The office that heard the most of them is Anaheim.
- Decisions
- 7
- Years
- 2023–2026
- Issues disputed
- 3
- District offices
- 7
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
6 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
- Partners Personnel Management Services, LLC4
- Staffing Partners Holdings, INC.2
- Ctrust Staffing LLC1
- Stuart Dean Company1
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 7 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work.
Decisions
Newest decisions this insurance carrier is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.
- ADJ16859150 · 2025-08-29 · San Francisco District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Applicant's petition for penalties sought sanctions, penalties and attorneys' fees for the same alleged conduct: namely, defendant's failure to pay temporary disability in this case. Penalties under Labor Code section 5814, which apply when payment that is due is either delayed or denied, are an inducement for prompt payment, while sanctions under our Labor Code section 5813 are "designed to protect against litigation abuses, not to remedy or penalize delayed payments of awards." (Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appl. Bd, (2008) 73 Cal. Comp. Cases 1197, 1202.) Bad faith actions or tactics "include actions or tactics that result from a willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation," disrupt or delay proceedings, or that "are done for an improper motive or are indisputably without merit." (Title 8, Cal. Code Reg. section 10421(b).) Applicant has presented no evidence that would support a finding of sanctions.
Applicant did not present evidence of bad faith or willful failure to comply by defendant to support sanctions or attorneys' fees. WCJ's discretion to deny sanctions and fees was not abused.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ15289923 · 2024-12-13 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we believe that the best course of action here is to rescind the F&A and substitute a new order finding that development of the record is required with regard to applicant's neurological and ophthalmologic complaints, with other issues deferred pending such development. Upon completion of development of the record, the WCJ will be in a position to reconsider those other issues with the benefit of a complete and adequate record, and therefore to issue a decision supported by substantial evidence that accords due process to both parties. We trust that the parties, having already wasted substantial time and judicial resources through inattention and poor communication, will work together diligently and collaboratively from this point on to avoid further delay or confusion.
The Appeals Board found that further development of the record was required due to insufficient medical evidence and extraordinary circumstances related to a defective Declaration of Readiness to Proceed and failure to object, warranting rescission of the prior Findings and Award.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ17466712 · 2026-05-08 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.345 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, the applicant is seeking reconsideration of the Order issued by the WCJ on February 27, 2026, wherein the WCJ continued the status conference held on February 26, 2026 to another status conference. The WCJ's decision solely to continue a hearing resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision, and the Petition will be dismissed. In the Report, the WCJ observes that although applicant logged into Court Call, because of connection issues, applicant could not appear and participate at the February 26, 2026 status
The order continuing a status conference is not a final order and thus not subject to reconsideration; removal is denied as applicant failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ19035008 · 2025-10-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on July 29, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ15972656 · 2025-10-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on December 2, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for removal because the record was incomplete and the WCJ should first consider the petition as a request for continuance at trial level.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ16953860 · 2024-02-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On December 20, 2023, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative Petition for Removal and a First Amended Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative Petition for Removal contending, in essence, that the December 15, 2023 Order Denying applicant's Request for Continuance issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) was a violation of due process. We have considered the allegations of the Petitions 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 below, we will dismiss the petition to the extent that it seeks reconsideration and we will grant removal on motion of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) pursuant to Labor Code section 5310.
The December 15, 2023 WCJ Order Denying Request for Continuance was interlocutory and not a final order, so reconsideration was improper; removal was granted as an extraordinary remedy under Labor Code section 5310.
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.
- STARR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
- Starr Specialty Insurance Company
- Starr Specialty Insurance Company/Corvel Sacramento
- Starr Specialty Insurance
- STARR SPECIALTY INS. 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.
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.