Technology Insurance 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

• Los Angeles 8
• Van Nuys 8
• Marina del Rey 3
• Pomona 3
• Anaheim 2
• Riverside 2
• San Bernardino 2
• Fresno 1
• Long Beach 1
• Oakland 1
• Redding 1
• Salinas 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.

• 14 for the defense
• 12 for the applicant
• 8 returned for more record

Counted over 33 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this insurance carrier is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ20910758 · 2026-06-30 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7In this matter, applicant attempted to amend the date of injury to conform to the testimony provided by applicant which, as all parties seem to agree, directly refuted a period of employment prior to April 20, 2025 as initially plead. It is not clear from the record whether defendant objected to the motion, but the WCJ denied the request. We agree that the request was made at a late point in litigation after both parties had effectively rested and the exhibits had been agreed to and discussed. However, the motion should have been granted and the matter deferred for further discovery and a hearing on the merits.

  The WCJ erred in denying amendment of the pleadings to conform to testimony regarding employment dates; the proper procedure was to develop the record further. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to determine employment during the correct period.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ14015513 · 2026-04-13 · Redding District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award and Opinion on Decision (F&A) issued on January 7, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed on October 5, 2020, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the femur, bruised lung, and in the form of a traumatic brain injury; (2) the employer has furnished some medical treatment, and the primary treating physician is Dr. Timothy Lo; (3) there has not been a timely Utilization Review (UR) denial of the August 20, 2025 Request For Authorization (RFA) from Dr. Lo for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week of home attendant care; and (4) the requested treatment in the form of home attendant care is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of industrial injury.

  The medical evidence was unanimous that the applicant requires 24/7 home attendant care as reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury, supported by the primary treating physician Dr. Lo, the AME Dr. Munday, and a Life Care Plan. The defendant's contention that the RFA was incomplete and the Utilization Review was validly denied was rejected as invalid and untimely, allowing the WCJ to determine medical necessity.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10684244 · 2026-04-01 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we rescind the F&O, and substitute a new Findings of Fact that finds that cost petitioner met its burden under Labor Code section 4620 to show a contested claim existed at the time it provided its medical-legal services beginning on January 23, 2017 and defer all other issues. We return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision. For the foregoing reasons,

  The WCAB found that a contested claim existed at the time the cost petitioner provided medical-legal services beginning January 23, 2017, based on the filing of the Application, defendant's notices terminating benefits, and issuance of subpoenas, thus meeting the burden under Labor Code section 4620.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10540221 · 2026-01-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8submitted on March 21, 2025 established the need for expedited review, or that any such determination was communicated to the prescribing physician within 72 hours of defendant's receipt of the RFA. As a result, defendant's March 26, 2025 UR decision was untimely, and the WCAB is vested with jurisdiction over the underlying medical treatment dispute. (Dubon v. World Restoration (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298 [2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 131].) Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, substitute new Findings of Fact that defendant's March 26, 2025 UR determination was untimely, and return this matter to the WCJ for determination of whether applicant has met the burden of establishing that the requested medical treatment is medically necessary under applicable medical treatment utilization schedule and recommended guidelines. (Lab. Code, § 4604.5; 5307.27 et seq.)

  The WCAB found that the defendant's March 26, 2025 UR determination was untimely because no medical professional reviewed the expedited request within the required 72-hour timeframe, thus vesting jurisdiction in the WCAB to determine medical necessity.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ20023103 · 2025-12-23 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Technology Insurance Company seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award1 of September 19, 2025, wherein it was found that "[while] employed during the period of October 1, 2023 to October 1, 2024, as a Lumper, occupational group number deferred, by TW Services, Inc., [applicant] sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to abdomen, groin and hernia." It was also found that applicant's claim was not barred as a post-termination claim pursuant to Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) and that the "applicant is not barred from benefits per Labor Code section 3700."

  The WCJ failed to make findings on the date of injury and industrial causation was not supported by competent expert evidence; the record requires further development on these issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8371384 · 2025-11-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5On August 18, 2025, the WCJ issued a Joint Findings & Orders and Opinion on Decision. As relevant herein, the WCJ found that none of the lien claimants met their burden of proof to recover on their liens.

  The WCJ initially found lien claimants did not meet burden of proof for reasonable medical treatment, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and granted reconsideration for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13465387 · 2025-08-01 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In this case, John Lavorgna, M.D., served as the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), and his opinions provided the sole medical evidence submitted by the parties. We presume that the AME was chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality, and that his opinions should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find those opinions unpersuasive. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114, 117].) In his report dated December 17, 2020, the AME determined that applicant had reached Maximal Medical Improvement and assigned Whole Person Impairment percentages for applicant's cervical spine (8 percent for a Cervical Category II Diagnosis-Related Estimate according to The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition), lumbar spine (8 percent for a Lumbar Category II Diagnosis-Related Estimate per the AMA Guides), left shoulder (16 percent whole person impairment), and left hip (20 percent for full-time use of a cane and moderately severe gait derangement). (Joint Exhibit 101, Report of AME John Lavorgna, M.D., dated December 17, 2020, page 10, paragraphs 3-6.) The AME apportioned 100 percent of these impairments to applicant's industrial injury of June 23, 2018. (Id.)

  The AME's medical opinions and vocational experts' reports support a finding of 100% permanent total disability due to severe work restrictions and loss of earning capacity.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12202677 · 2025-06-18 · Anaheim District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8However, defendant filed a DOR on November 7, 2024. At trial, the issue of permanent disability was submitted. Yet, there is no QME or agreed medical evaluator (AME) in psychology or psychiatry in violation of section 4061(i). Although the dissenting panelist appears to place responsibility for the failure to obtain such medical-legal reporting on applicant, it is defendant who filed the DOR without proceeding to a QME or AME and without a stipulation by applicant that she was not claiming permanent disability. Section 4061(i) clearly requires that the parties proceed to a medical-legal evaluation before a DOR is filed, and a defendant may not use an applicant's lack of diligence as an excuse to circumvent this statutory requirement.

  The Appeals Board found no psychiatric QME evaluation was obtained before trial as required by law, and deferred permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney fees for psychiatric injury for further development.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ15819265 · 2025-05-02 · Van Nuys 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 February 3, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that decedent, while employed by defendant as a store manager on October 18, 2021, did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his head, circulatory system, stress, psych, resulting in his death.

  The Appeals Board found that the PQME Dr. Weingarten's opinions on causation were not substantial medical evidence because they were incomplete, speculative, and based on an inadequate medical record, particularly lacking information for the period immediately preceding decedent's death and the autopsy was not admitted into evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded for further proceedings to develop the record and clarify medical opinions.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16292687 · 2025-04-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4II. Lien claimant's non-attorney representative stated that lien claimant did not receive the notice of intention to dismiss from the WCAB, which raises procedural due process concerns as to whether the required notice was received. All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) It is one of the basic tenets of jurisprudence that a party must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before their case is dismissed. (See, e.g., San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].) Thus, the failure to serve lien claimant with the Notice of intention to dismiss is not only a violation of WCAB Rules; it constitutes a fundamental violation of lien claimant's due process rights, rendering the resulting December 18, 2024 Order of dismissal void on its face. There is a strong public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits rather than on procedural grounds. (Bland v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 324 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 513]; Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

  The lien claimant did not receive proper notice of the hearing and notice of intention to dismiss, violating due process and WCAB rules, rendering the dismissal order void; public policy favors disposition on merits; thus, the petition for reconsideration was granted and the dismissal order rescinded.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12473910 · 2025-02-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Technology Insurance Company petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 7, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found, in pertinent part, that lien claimant Darrell Burstein, M.D. performed valid medical-legal services on or about June 2, 2020, and August 12, 2021, and awarded Dr. Burstein reimbursement for those services along with penalty and interest. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding defendant liable for payment to lien claimant.

  The WCJ initially found the lien claimant's services valid and awarded reimbursement, but the WCAB rescinded that decision and approved a settlement stipulation resolving the claim with payment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8166020 · 2024-12-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8FINDINGS OF FACT 1. (ADJ8166020) the applicant, while employed on May 2, 2008, as a certified nursing assistant, at Sylmar, California, by Ember Care, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was Technology Insurance Company, administered by Majestic (currently AmTrust), sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her back, but not to her arms, fingers or shoulders. 2. (ADJ8371382) the applicant, while employed on November 24, 2011, as a certified nursing assistant, at El Segundo, California, by Life House Holdings LLC, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was United States Fire Insurance Company, administered by Zenith, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her right hand and wrist, but not to her back. 3. (ADJ8371384) the applicant, while employed during the period commencing April 26, 2011 through April 26, 2012, as a certified nursing assistant, at El Segundo, California, by Life House Holdings LLC, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was United States Fire Insurance Company, administered by Zenith, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her right wrist and hand, left wrist and hand, and low back. 4. The issue of whether lien claimants are entitled to recovery on their liens is deferred.

  The WCAB found substantial evidence in the AME Dr. Danzig's opinion that applicant sustained injuries on May 2, 2008, November 24, 2011, and during the period April 26, 2011 to April 26, 2012, arising out of and in the course of employment, overruling the WCJ's contrary finding.

  Official decision · page 8 →

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.

• TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY
• Technology Insurance Company
• TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
• TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE
• Technology Insurance Company, Adjusted by Amtrust North America
• Technology Insurance Company, Inc.

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.