California WCABInsurance carrier
Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund
Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund is named as an insurance carrier in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Apportionment (1) and Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1). Defense most often ran through Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (1). The office that heard the most of them is Oakland.
- Decisions
- 11
- Years
- 2022–2026
- Issues disputed
- 6
- District offices
- 7
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
4 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
No employer appears often enough to name.
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 10 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.
- ADJ17497715 · 2025-02-10 · Oakland District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based on the Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we grant reconsideration to amend the Findings of Fact to show that applicant met the SIBTF eligibility requirements and to award permanent total
The Appeals Board found that the applicant met the 35% SIBTF eligibility threshold based on permanent disability calculations and granted reconsideration to amend the Findings of Fact to award permanent total disability less credits and attorney fees.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12273693 · 2025-01-13 · Salinas District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5SIBTF contends that, aside from the bilateral wrists, there is no substantial evidence to support the rest of the preexisting disabilities. We disagree. Michael Newman, D.C.'s, and Bruce J. Dreyfuss, M.D.'s, reports show medical records as far back as 2009 showing lumbar spine disease. (Exhibit A1, Dr. Newman's report dated September 2, 2022, pp. 13-14; Exhibit A3, Dr. Dreyfuss's report dated October 17, 2022, p. 4.) Furthermore, Dr. Newman's opinions regarding applicant's preexisting injuries to his cervical spine, bilateral shoulders, and bilateral elbows are based on x-rays that, although were taken after the subsequent injury, show degenerative disease that occurred over time; and based on applicant's work history as a grocery stocker consisting of heavy lifting, bending, and prolonged repetitive use of both upper extremities over 29+ years, it is reasonable for Dr. Newman to conclude the degenerative disease to the cervical spine and upper extremity preexisted the subsequent injury. (Exhibit A1, Dr. Newman's report dated September 2, 2022, pp. 10-11, 30.)
The applicant proved preexisting labor disabling permanent disabilities supported by substantial medical evidence from Drs. Newman, Dreyfuss, and Kirz, and met the statutory requirements for SIBTF liability with combined permanent disability exceeding 70%.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ8035633 · 2024-10-14 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11But defendant cites no evidence, and we are aware of none, to suggest that applicant was aware of a permanent partial disability resulting from a work injury to the brain prior to the cumulative injury of April 27, 2001 through January 5, 2011 until at least 2020, when he learned he could file the petition for subsequent injuries benefits. (Report, p. 7.) Notably, the WCJ deemed applicant's testimony that he did not learn of his claim for subsequent injuries benefits until he attended the 2020 Super Bowl credible, and we accord this determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witness's demeanor at trial. (Report, pp. 6-7; Garza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)
Applicant did not know and could not reasonably be deemed to know of substantial likelihood of entitlement to subsequent injuries benefits within five years from the date of injury; no proof of service of critical documents on applicant; WCJ's credibility finding on applicant's testimony was accorded great weight; thus petition was timely filed.
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ111292949 · 2024-09-16 · Oxnard District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813deferred
Determinative passage · p.9Finally, we note that the WCJ awarded 25% in attorney's fees. The WCJ explained that "this case was substantially complex enough to warrant a fee of equal to 25% of each future payout from SIBTF awarded." (Opinion on Decision dated July 3, 2024.) We recognize the care that applicant's attorneys exercised in representing applicant and the positive result achieved for applicant. However, there has not been any evidence taken to substantiate an award of 25%. Furthermore, attorney's fees are governed by Labor Code, section 4903 and WCAB Rule 10844, not necessarily the "complexity" of a case. For that reason, we amend the Findings and Award to defer the issue of attorney's fees.
The WCAB deferred the issue of attorney's fees due to lack of evidence substantiating the 25% fee awarded by the WCJ, noting fees are governed by statute and rule, not case complexity.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ10684274 · 2024-06-03 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred
Determinative passage · p.104. The issue of whether applicant's subsequent cumulative trauma injury meets the 35 percent permanent disability threshold under Labor Code section 4751 is deferred.
The issue of whether the subsequent cumulative trauma injury meets the 35 percent permanent disability threshold under section 4751 is deferred for further medical record development and trial proceedings.
Official decision · page 10 → - ADJ12027044 · 2026-06-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED.
The Petition for Reconsideration was denied because the petitioner did not allege any grounds allowed under Labor Code Section 5903 and the petition was not timely acted upon within 60 days as required by Labor Code Section 5909.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ11748300 · 2026-05-22 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant SIBTF seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) previously served as defense counsel in this matter.
The petition was dismissed as moot because the WCJ recused herself and the matter was reassigned.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12394766 · 2025-01-17 · Oakland District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5On October 15, 2024, the WCJ issued her Findings and Order in which she found that the QME report of Moses Jacob, D.C., was incomplete and not substantial medical evidence as he did not review the AME report of 3/22/22 [sic]. The WCJ additionally found that the reports of treating physicians Timothy Shen and Vikram Talwar were not substantial medical evidence.
The WCJ found the AME's opinion that the lumbar spine injury was only a temporary aggravation and not a permanent injury, thus not meeting the threshold for SIBTF benefits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits and evidence, indicating the initial denial was premature.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ10049929 · 2024-03-26 · San Jose District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In the present case, upon review of the entire records, the undersigned found that Dr. Chen's report was not substantial in that it failed to demonstrate by competent evidence that she had ratable pre-existing partial disability to her alleged varicose vein. Further, applicant's testimony at trial was inconsistent with medical records. What applicant reported to her QMEs were also inconsistent with medical history as reviewed by the doctors.
Applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence of ratable pre-existing permanent partial disability to the left lower extremity as of the subsequent injury date, and the medical opinions relied on were speculative and unsupported by medical records.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ8302918 · 2023-11-06 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) seeks reconsideration of the August 10, 2023 Findings of Fact, Order & Award, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant's SIBTF claim was not time barred.
The WCJ properly applied the Talcott two-prong test for timeliness of SIBTF claims, finding no statute of limitations bar because the applicant filed within a reasonable time after learning of probable liability from the WCAB's findings. The Board found no evidence to disturb the WCJ's credibility findings and no Board finding of permanent disability existed to trigger the limitations period earlier.
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.
- SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND
- Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund
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.