Superior National Insurance

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

• Apportionment3
• Jurisdiction / venue3
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141

Where they appear

• Marina del Rey 2
• Oakland 2
• Anaheim 1
• Lodi 1
• Redding 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.

• 4 for the defense
• 3 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

• ADJ756255 · 2024-09-24 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3While the WCA issued the Report on December 22, 2021, filing of the arbitration file in EAMS was not completed as required by WCAB Rule 10995, as the record does not include all exhibits proffered, including, but not limited to, the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision of November 11, 2021 of the WCA for which both parties seek reconsideration.

  The record was incomplete, lacking necessary exhibits and an adequate description and organization of evidence, preventing meaningful review by the Board.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ1004210 · 2024-06-07 · Lodi District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) seeking to vacate a Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) issued on April 30, 2021 by a workers compensation judge (WCJ). The WCJ found in relevant part that defendants were jointly and severally liable with respect to a December 16, 1996 Stipulations with Request for Award, wherein applicant's injuries caused 70.25% permanent disability to the right knee, low back, and psyche. The settlement also indicated that SCIF was responsible for 20% of the overall liability and Superior National Insurance, now insolvent, was responsible for the remaining 80%. The WCJ found SCIF responsible for administration and payment of the future medical award without reimbursement from California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) on behalf of Superior National Insurance as well as reimbursement for any post liquidation medical expenses paid by CIGA.

  The WCAB found that SCIF is jointly and severally liable for medical treatment and reimbursement to CIGA for post liquidation medical expenses, rejecting SCIF's argument that liability should remain split as per the original settlement because CIGA is not bound by the pre-liquidation apportionment and is not an ordinary insurer.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3762315 · 2024-03-29 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Oakland filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award of May 19, 2023. Oakland contends that apportionment between the injuries, five years apart and at two different employers, is mandated by Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535 [74 Cal.Comp.Cases 113 ("Benson"). Oakland alleges that such apportionment is supported by Dr. Mandell, the Agreed Medical Evaluator ("AME") in orthopedics, who apportioned liability equally between the injuries based on reasonable medical probability, and that Dr. Mandell's opinion is substantial evidence because he performed a comprehensive medical evaluation and explained each of the distinct industrial and non-industrial factors. Finally, Oakland alleges that "the opinion of the WCJ results in administrative chaos where CIGA and the City of Oakland have no basis to determine liability for payment of the award if apportionment between the injuries cannot be determined."

  The WCJ's rejection of Dr. Mandell's apportionment opinion was upheld because the opinion was found to be speculative, inconsistent, and lacking substantial evidence, and the WCAB is not bound by the AME's opinion.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ30466970 · 2022-11-21 · Marina del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In our September 21, 2018 order, we appointed WCJ Zamudio to act as a special master. According to applicant's November 4, 2020 petition, WCJ Zamudio subsequently retired thereby rendering our previous order moot. We granted removal on December 7, 2020. Yet, contrary to the assertions by applicant in her Petition for Reconsideration, pursuant to WCAB Rule 10955(e), the WCJ continued to have authority to proceed even after removal was granted, and the WCJ, in consultation with the PJ, could have taken appropriate action. However, in order to clarify that WCJ Zamudio is no longer the special master, we will amend our September 21, 2018 order to reflect that the matter is referred to the PJ to determine the issue of a special master and to take any other appropriate action.

  The Appeals Board affirmed prior orders but amended the 2018 Opinion to refer the matter to the Presiding Judge to consider appointment of a special master and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, due to the retirement of the previously appointed special master and procedural posture.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ3762315 · 2022-06-21 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2The City of Oakland ("petitioner") filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. Petitioner contends, in substance, that the WCJ erred in rejecting the apportionment opinion of Dr. Mandell, the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) in orthopedics, who apportioned liability to three separate and distinct injuries, and to non-industrial causes. Petitioner further contends that the WCJ erred in relying on a single document to increase applicant's temporary disability rate for all payments after 2001, that the document is not substantial evidence because it included the range of pay for applicant's position eighteen years after the time of injury, and that the parties limited the time period in dispute to a single year.

  The WCJ rejected apportionment despite the AME Dr. Mandell's opinion, but the WCAB found the WCJ did not properly apply the law and must revisit apportionment with further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• 2002spd-1 · 2002-07-10Jurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.120 judge (WCJ) correctly dismissed the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) as a party

  The WCJ dismissed CIGA prematurely before determining the date of injury or period of injurious exposure, which are threshold issues that must be decided before dismissing CIGA. The Board rescinded the dismissal orders and returned the matters for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• 2001-eb7 · 2001-12-24Penalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11411 3, 2001. In that decision, the WCJ detennined that defendant unreasonably delayed payment of

  Defendant failed to present any evidence explaining the delay, thus the Board affirmed the penalty for unreasonable delay in payment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ993752 · 2025-06-13 · Marina del Rey 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 found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ4469376 · 2022-04-11 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any issues raised in the petition and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision.

  The Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision due to errors and omissions in the trial record and confusion about admitted evidence.

  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.

• SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• Superior National Insurance
• SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE
• SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY/CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION
• Superior National Insurance Company
• SUPERIOR NATIONAL COMPANY

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.