State Farm Fire and 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

• Sacramento 5
• Los Angeles 4
• Oakland 4
• Bakersfield 2
• Pomona 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Fresno 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Riverside 1
• San Diego 1
• San Francisco 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.

• 13 for the defense
• 7 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 23 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.

• ADJ17097194 · 2026-02-23 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 25, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his head and lumbar spine; that applicant was intoxicated at the time of injury and that his intoxication was a proximate and substantial cause of the injury; and ordered that applicant take nothing.

  The WCJ found applicant intoxicated and that intoxication was a proximate cause of injury, but the WCAB found evidentiary deficiencies including exclusion of key witness testimony, incomplete medical records for the AME, and lack of applicant testimony on pre-injury vertigo, requiring remand for further development of causation evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12735589 · 2026-01-22 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on January 7, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that pursuant to Labor Code section 54052, applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits was time-barred, whereby resulting in her taking nothing from her claims filed herein.

  The WCJ found the employer met its duty to provide a claim form and notice, and the applicant filed the claim more than one year after the injury, so the claim is time-barred under section 5405 without equitable tolling.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20170253 · 2025-12-22 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 22, 2025. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring during the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his left leg, left groin, hernia, right ankle, right shoulder, neck, left testicle, and nasal during the period from February 10, 2019 through May 10, 2019; applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his right shoulder, neck, and head on March 19, 2019; and the March 19, 2019 claim of injury was barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to Labor Code section 54051. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.

  The WCJ's findings denying injury AOE/COE were not supported by substantial medical evidence, particularly due to deficiencies in the QME's reports and history taking, warranting further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10620763 · 2024-04-23 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In summary, we are persuaded that a complete evidentiary record is necessary to the proper determination of the issue of applicant's election pursuant to section 5500.5. The WCJ's Order presently defers the issue of the election pending a determination of injury AOE/COE. However, because we believe a record must be created to address the issue of the election in the first instance, we will grant removal and affirm the Order, but amend it to reflect that the issue of applicant's election is deferred pending the creation of a full evidentiary record pursuant to Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473.

  The WCJ's order deferring the election issue was affirmed but amended to require creation of a full evidentiary record before adjudication, ensuring proper evaluation of applicant's election rights under Labor Code section 5500.5.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11199891 · 2024-03-18 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION WCAB Rules 10816 and 10510 govern electronic appearances. WCAB Rule 10816 states: "If a party intends to appear electronically at any hearing, they shall file a petition showing good cause pursuant to rule 10510." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10816.) WCAB Rule 10510 requires, among other things, that "a request for action by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board...shall be made by petition." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510.) Here, applicant's request for an electronic appearance lacked the formality typically associated with such a request under the rules, but the Board's rules "serve the convenience of the tribunal and the [litigants] and facilitate the proceedings. They do not deprive the tribunal of the

  The WCJ denied the request for electronic appearance due to untimeliness and lack of good cause, but the Board found insufficient evidence to support the denial and determined that due process was not provided, thus rescinding the denial and remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ6502989 · 2023-10-16 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6However, as the WCJ explains in Finding of Fact No. 8, neither the October 22, 2021 nor November 23, 2021 RFAs request that defendant authorize medical transportation to all medical appointments on all appointment dates. Rather, the November 23, 2021 RFA reiterates the request lodged in the October 22, 2021 RFA for transportation to a single October 29, 2021 appointment with Dr. McWhorter. (Ex. 2, Request for Authorization, November 23, 2021; Ex. 7, Request for Authorization, October 22, 2021.) While applicant urges a broader reading of the RFA in tandem with the November 4, 2021 and April 23, 2023 letters of Dr. McWhorter, we agree that on the record before us, the requests were limited to a single date of service. (Opinion on Decision, p. 4.) Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the WCJ's determinations in this regard.

  The RFAs in evidence requested transportation for a single appointment, not ongoing transportation to all appointments; no timely Utilization Review was performed, so WCAB had jurisdiction, but the record did not support a broader award.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11495426 · 2023-02-24 · Bakersfield District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6APPLICANT PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT EMPLOYER'S BREACH OF ITS DUTY TO PROVIDE A SAFE WORK PLACE

  Applicant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that employer breached duty to provide a safe workplace causing 20% of injury; credible expert testimony supported employer negligence and value of third-party action; no rebuttal evidence from defendant.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12830624 · 2023-02-13 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on January 4, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant was an employee of Michael Paiva on January 21, 2019.

  The Board found that defendant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant was an independent contractor, and that applicant was an employee under the Borello test, including control and secondary factors.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11965696 · 2022-01-24 · Bakersfield District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Nevertheless, liability for cumulative trauma is limited to the last year "immediately preceding" either the section 5412 date of injury "or" the last date of occupational exposure, "whichever occurs first." (Lab. Code, § 5500.5.) In this case, we agree with the WCJ that pursuant to Dr. Baum's substantial opinion, the last year of injurious occupational exposure was the year ending on July 3, 2012.

  The last year of injurious occupational exposure was the year ending July 3, 2012, based on Dr. Baum's substantial medical opinion and the statutory scheme; the section 5412 date of injury is after the last day of exposure, so liability is limited to the year ending July 3, 2012.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11349792 · 2021-10-29 · Sacramento District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In its April 30, 2021 order denying defendant's Petition for Writ of Review (No. C093419), the Third District Court of Appeal remanded this matter to the Appeals Board to make a supplemental award of reasonable attorney fees to the attorney for respondent (applicant), based upon services rendered in connection with defendant's petition for writ of review. (Lab. Code, § 5801; Crown Appliance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wong) (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 620, 627- 628 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 55, 60-61]; Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez) (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 104, 108-109 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 167, 169-170].) The court's order has become final.

  The Board considered the attorney's time, effort, care, experience, skill, results, and the complexity of the issues in opposing the writ, finding the requested fee reasonable and supported by verified time itemization, despite defendant's objections.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11292762 · 2021-05-26 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.71. The application in ADJ127220128 claims an injury for the same body parts and time period as the application in ADJ11292762. 2. Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10455, the later filed application is subject to summary dismissal. 3. The issue of Defendant's Petition for Costs and Sanctions is deferred with jurisdiction reserved at the trial level.

  Applicant did not present evidence of compensable disability in 2017, so there was no basis for a second cumulative trauma injury; thus, the later application was duplicative and subject to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ3006563 · 2026-01-06 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, has conditionally filed a Petition for Reconsideration and a Petition for Disqualification (Petitions) on October 20, 2025. The PWCJ issued a Report on the conditionally filed Petitions transmitting the cases to the Appeals Board. We have considered the contents of the Petitions and the record in the cases. Based on our review, we do not find a significant change in circumstances, such as new or newly discovered evidence or change in the

  The Appeals Board found no significant change in circumstances to accept the petitions for filing and acted timely on the petitions within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.

  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.

• STATE FARM
• STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
• STATE FARM INSURANCE
• State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
• STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY
• STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY
• STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY
• State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
• STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY

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.