California WCABInsurance carrier

SUNZ Insurance Company

SUNZ Insurance Company is named as an insurance carrier in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2024–2026. The disputes run to QME/AME process (2), Temporary disability (2) and AOE/COE (1). Defense most often ran through DJG Law Group (1). The employer appearing most often is Insource Employer Solutions, INC. (2). The office that heard the most of them is Anaheim.

Decisions: 11
Years: 2024–2026
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.

Who defends them

7 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Whose claims they run

Insource Employer Solutions, INC.2
Avalon Cold Storage LLC1
Beyond Resource Solutions, INC.1
Ctrust Staffing LLC1
Fairway Staffing Services, INC.1
HR Staffing Solutions INC1
MVP Payroll Financing, LLC Lcf Priority Business Services, INC.1
Partners Personnel Management Services, LLC1
Priority Workforce, INC.1
Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions INC.1

Where they appear

Anaheim 3
Los Angeles 2
Van Nuys 2
Fresno 1
Pomona 1
Redding 1
Riverside 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.

7 for the defense
2 for the applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ20695668 · 2026-06-12 · Redding District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.8The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].)
The WCAB found the record insufficient to fairly determine the applicant's average weekly wage or earning capacity, deferring the issue for further evidentiary development.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ20228986 · 2026-05-11 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8We now turn to the issue of whether lien claimant met the burden to show injuryn AOE/COE.
The Appeals Board found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE based on applicant's credible account, Dr. Haghighinia's medical opinion linking the injury to work, and the lack of contradictory evidence from defendant's witness who was not present at the injury.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ19040269 · 2026-04-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.4Here, it appears to be uncontested that applicant refused or abandoned an offer of modified work. The relevant inquiry in this matter is whether applicant's refusal or abandonment of modified work was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Here, the WCJ did not analyze this issue.
The WCJ did not analyze whether the applicant reasonably refused or abandoned suitable modified work, which is necessary to determine entitlement to temporary disability indemnity. The WCAB found the record insufficient and remanded for further development including QME reporting on disability and work restrictions.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ20508246 · 2025-09-02 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Thus, based upon the evidence presented, defendant's request was premature, in violation of section 4062.2(b), and invalid.
Defendant's request for panel 7799274 was premature as it was made before 5:00 pm on April 3, 2025, violating Labor Code section 4062.2(b) and related regulations, rendering the panel invalid.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ18205051 · 2024-06-17 · Anaheim District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports the finding that applicant failed to comply with AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C).
Applicant's proof of service did not show service of all required documents under AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C); thus, the QME panel was invalid.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ20725506 · 2026-06-26 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order denying petition for automatic reassignment issued on March 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ denied applicant's request for automatic reassignment because it was not timely.
The WCJ and WCAB panel found the petition for removal was not timely filed under WCAB Rule 10788 and that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
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 →
ADJ21245782 · 2026-01-05 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In the Report, the WCJ explains as follows: Respectfully, defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is premature. Defendants should have filed a Petition to Set Aside the Compromise and Release. At this time there is no record indicating that there was a mutual mistake of fact and the undersigned believes that this matter should be returned to the Judge and the case set for hearing to address if there is good cause to set aside the Compromise and Release. The merits of defendant's arguments cannot be addressed without a record being developed.
The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because there was no developed record to evaluate the merits of the claim of mutual mistake of fact, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings to develop the record and address whether good cause exists to set aside the OACR.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ18331703 · 2025-12-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on November 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The WCAB panel found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17350152 · 2025-10-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal we will rescind the September 18, 2024 Finding and Order and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's Finding and Order was not supported by any record, violating defendant's due process rights and causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, thus justifying removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19417386 · 2025-03-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a Petition for Removal of the Findings and Orders issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 9, 2024, in which the WCJ found that due to an irreparable ambiguity regarding panel strikes of the parties, a new panel is appropriate to replace existing panel number 7709310. The WCJ ordered the medical director of the division of workers' compensation (DWC) to issue a replacement panel, and further ordered that the next set of strikes by the parties as to that replacement panel occur via email to avoid a duplicate strike.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order replacing the panel, and reconsideration is an adequate remedy if adverse final decision issues.
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.

SUNZ INSURANCE COMPANY
Sunz Insurance Company
SUNZ HOLDINGS, LLC
SUNZ INSURANCE

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.

Start a matter Search without an account →

SUNZ Insurance Company

Decisions

Years

2024–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

7 for the defense

2 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ20695668 · 2026-06-12 · Redding District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.8The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].)

The WCAB found the record insufficient to fairly determine the applicant's average weekly wage or earning capacity, deferring the issue for further evidentiary development.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ20228986 · 2026-05-11 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8We now turn to the issue of whether lien claimant met the burden to show injuryn AOE/COE.

The Appeals Board found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE based on applicant's credible account, Dr. Haghighinia's medical opinion linking the injury to work, and the lack of contradictory evidence from defendant's witness who was not present at the injury.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ19040269 · 2026-04-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.4Here, it appears to be uncontested that applicant refused or abandoned an offer of modified work. The relevant inquiry in this matter is whether applicant's refusal or abandonment of modified work was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Here, the WCJ did not analyze this issue.

The WCJ did not analyze whether the applicant reasonably refused or abandoned suitable modified work, which is necessary to determine entitlement to temporary disability indemnity. The WCAB found the record insufficient and remanded for further development including QME reporting on disability and work restrictions.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ20508246 · 2025-09-02 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Thus, based upon the evidence presented, defendant's request was premature, in violation of section 4062.2(b), and invalid.

Defendant's request for panel 7799274 was premature as it was made before 5:00 pm on April 3, 2025, violating Labor Code section 4062.2(b) and related regulations, rendering the panel invalid.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ18205051 · 2024-06-17 · Anaheim District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports the finding that applicant failed to comply with AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C).

Applicant's proof of service did not show service of all required documents under AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C); thus, the QME panel was invalid.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ20725506 · 2026-06-26 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order denying petition for automatic reassignment issued on March 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ denied applicant's request for automatic reassignment because it was not timely.

The WCJ and WCAB panel found the petition for removal was not timely filed under WCAB Rule 10788 and that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

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 →

ADJ21245782 · 2026-01-05 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6In the Report, the WCJ explains as follows: Respectfully, defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is premature. Defendants should have filed a Petition to Set Aside the Compromise and Release. At this time there is no record indicating that there was a mutual mistake of fact and the undersigned believes that this matter should be returned to the Judge and the case set for hearing to address if there is good cause to set aside the Compromise and Release. The merits of defendant's arguments cannot be addressed without a record being developed.

The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because there was no developed record to evaluate the merits of the claim of mutual mistake of fact, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings to develop the record and address whether good cause exists to set aside the OACR.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ18331703 · 2025-12-24 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on November 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The WCAB panel found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17350152 · 2025-10-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal we will rescind the September 18, 2024 Finding and Order and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's Finding and Order was not supported by any record, violating defendant's due process rights and causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, thus justifying removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19417386 · 2025-03-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a Petition for Removal of the Findings and Orders issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 9, 2024, in which the WCJ found that due to an irreparable ambiguity regarding panel strikes of the parties, a new panel is appropriate to replace existing panel number 7709310. The WCJ ordered the medical director of the division of workers' compensation (DWC) to issue a replacement panel, and further ordered that the next set of strikes by the parties as to that replacement panel occur via email to avoid a duplicate strike.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order replacing the panel, and reconsideration is an adequate remedy if adverse final decision issues.

Official decision · page 1 →