California WCABClaims administrator
State Contract Services
State Contract Services is named as a claims administrator in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Jurisdiction / venue (1) and Liens (1). The employer appearing most often is California State Prison, Lancaster (1). The office that heard the most of them is Fresno.
- Decisions
- 11
- Years
- 2022–2026
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 8
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
No defense firm appears often enough to name.
4 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
- California State Prison, Lancaster1
- CDCR 61 Cci Tehachapi, Legally Uninsured1
- Pleasant Valley State Prison / California Department of Corrections and Rehabilation1
- State of California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - CTF, Legally Uninsured1
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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.
Counted over 11 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.
- ADJ12672135 · 2026-06-18 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 19, 2026, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment (AOE/COE), and ordered that applicant take nothing from his claim.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in applying LaTourette to deny compensability because the injury was caused by the fall impact with the elevator rail and floor, not the non-industrial disease causing the fall, and thus the injury is compensable under established case law.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ7376924 · 2023-02-06 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6The Petitioner argued in Petition for Reconsideration that permanent disability rates should be calculated using the rate in effect on the date of the injury. They are separate benefits from temporary disability. P4ermanent disability does not fluctuate as temporary disability rates due in relation to when they are paid.
The petition for reconsideration was granted to correct the permanent total disability rate to be based on the rate in effect at the date of injury, not the temporary disability rate paid later, consistent with Labor Code provisions.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ9887085 · 2022-07-20 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7We therefore deny the 2022 Petition for Disqualification for failure to comply with the requirements of WCAB Rule 10960 that a petition for disqualification be filed after a notice of hearing is issued, and that a declaration under the penalty of perjury be filed with the petition detailing the grounds for disqualification. In addition to these procedural grounds for denial, we also deny the 2022 Petition for Disqualification because applicant failed to state grounds sufficient to establish that the WCJ is biased against applicant and in favor of defendant.
The petitions for disqualification were untimely and/or procedurally defective, and failed to state sufficient grounds for disqualification or bias. No declaration under penalty of perjury was filed as required, and no hearing was set to make the petition ripe.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ9898563 · 2026-06-08 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification 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 the Petition for Disqualification.
The WCJ's opinion was not a fixed one and was based on evidence and law, so disqualification was not warranted.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ20774559 · 2025-10-09 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on April 10, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ11999355 · 2025-07-15 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on May 30, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The petition was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12296469 · 2024-05-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.
The District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration; to permit review of the proposed settlement, the WCJ's decision is rescinded and the matter is returned to the trial level.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ1163499 · 2024-02-12 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal or in the Alternative 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny removal.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's November 16, 2023 Minutes of Hearing setting the matter for trial was not a final order, and removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ4367808 · 2023-06-30 · Van Nuys 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 removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
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.
- STATE CONTRACT SERVICES
- STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, ADJUSTING AGENCY
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.
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.