California WCABInsurance carrier

The Hanover Insurance Group

The Hanover Insurance Group is named as an insurance carrier in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Cumulative trauma (1) and QME/AME process (1). Defense most often ran through The Hanover Law Office (3). The employer appearing most often is Communication Technology Services LLC (1). The office that heard the most of them is Marina del Rey.

Decisions: 5
Years: 2023–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 4

What they litigate

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

Who defends them

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

Whose claims they run

Communication Technology Services LLC1
Johnny Was, LLC1
Medrevenue, LLC1
PCH Petroleum, INC.1
Woolfolks Refinishing1

Where they appear

Marina del Rey 2
Anaheim 1
Goleta 1
Van Nuys 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.

2 for the applicant
2 for the defense

Counted over 3 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.

ADJ11757597 · 2026-03-30 · Anaheim District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Defendant has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration wherein they dispute the Findings, Award and Order dated 05/27/2025 finding that defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Jerome Peterson, D.D.S./Guru Dentistry to treat applicant constitutes a bad faith action or tactic that is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, section 10421(a) and (b)(6); that Applicant is entitled to additional temporary disability for the period 01/10/2020 and continuing at a weekly rate to be adjusted by the parties with jurisdiction reserved up to the maximum allowed pursuant to Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) less amounts previously paid by defendant; that applicant sustained injury to urological and erectile dysfunction; and that applicant's attorney has performed services of a reasonable value of 15% of the temporary disability.
The court found defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Peterson to treat applicant constituted a bad faith action or tactic that is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, justifying sanctions.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ18473989 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, administered by The Hanover Insurance Group seeks removal based on the October 29, 2024 Finding and Order (served by the WCJ on November 13, 2024) Re: Additional QME Panel, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the medical record in this case requires further development in the form of an additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in the medical specialty of psychiatry. For the reasons given herein, we will grant the petition and return the case to the trial level for further proceedings.
The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking the necessary evidence to support the WCJ's order for an additional QME panel in psychiatry, thus granting removal and rescinding the order.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12320337 · 2024-04-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeCumulative traumamixed
Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of October 11, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, while employed by Johnny Was, LLC during the period October 1, 2012 through May 28, 2019, sustained a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment ("industrial injury") to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, knees, shoulders, elbows and wrists, and that applicant, while employed by Johnny Was, LLC during the period May 28, 2018 through May 29, 2019, sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury to her psyche.
The WCAB found the cumulative trauma injury period to be October 1, 2012 through May 28, 2019 for orthopedic injuries, but amended the psyche injury date to be the same as the orthopedic injury date based on medical opinion and evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11998537 · 2023-08-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4DISCUSSION Regarding the issue of the inpatient medical treatment, as noted above, Dr. Sangnil, stated that applicant's dizziness, impaired memory, vestibular dysfunction, anxiety, blurry vision, gait imbalance, migraine headaches, and insomnia had constituted unsafe living conditions and that applicant already had multiple falls with several leading to head traumas. (App. Exh. 19, p. 3.) We also note that in her Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that Dr. Sangnil's discussion of applicant's condition was consistent with "applicant's presentation, mood, affect, and testimony at trial" and that "applicant credibly testified he previously had significant benefit from inpatient residential programs" indicating that "if not for the earlier treatment, his present functioning level would be considerably worse." (F&O, p. 5, Opinion on Decision.) It is well established that a WCJ's opinions regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 505]; Sheffield Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Perez) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 868 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 358].) Thus, we agree with the WCJ's conclusion that "applicant has met the burden to prove in- patient neuro rehab is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury." (F&O, p.
The WCJ found that applicant met his burden to prove in-patient neuro rehab is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury, supported by medical opinions and applicant's credible testimony.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ18598754 · 2026-03-18 · Goleta District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1Thereafter on February 25, 2026, the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement. As the issue raised is now moot, we will dismiss the petition for removal.
The issue raised by the petition for removal became moot after the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement.
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.

The Hanover Insurance Group
THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP
The Hanover American Insurance 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.

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 →

The Hanover Insurance Group

Decisions

Years

2023–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

2 for the applicant

2 for the defense

Decisions

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

ADJ11757597 · 2026-03-30 · Anaheim District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Defendant has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration wherein they dispute the Findings, Award and Order dated 05/27/2025 finding that defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Jerome Peterson, D.D.S./Guru Dentistry to treat applicant constitutes a bad faith action or tactic that is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, section 10421(a) and (b)(6); that Applicant is entitled to additional temporary disability for the period 01/10/2020 and continuing at a weekly rate to be adjusted by the parties with jurisdiction reserved up to the maximum allowed pursuant to Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) less amounts previously paid by defendant; that applicant sustained injury to urological and erectile dysfunction; and that applicant's attorney has performed services of a reasonable value of 15% of the temporary disability.

The court found defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Peterson to treat applicant constituted a bad faith action or tactic that is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, justifying sanctions.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ18473989 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, administered by The Hanover Insurance Group seeks removal based on the October 29, 2024 Finding and Order (served by the WCJ on November 13, 2024) Re: Additional QME Panel, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the medical record in this case requires further development in the form of an additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in the medical specialty of psychiatry. For the reasons given herein, we will grant the petition and return the case to the trial level for further proceedings.

The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking the necessary evidence to support the WCJ's order for an additional QME panel in psychiatry, thus granting removal and rescinding the order.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12320337 · 2024-04-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeCumulative traumamixed

Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of October 11, 2021, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, while employed by Johnny Was, LLC during the period October 1, 2012 through May 28, 2019, sustained a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment ("industrial injury") to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, knees, shoulders, elbows and wrists, and that applicant, while employed by Johnny Was, LLC during the period May 28, 2018 through May 29, 2019, sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury to her psyche.

The WCAB found the cumulative trauma injury period to be October 1, 2012 through May 28, 2019 for orthopedic injuries, but amended the psyche injury date to be the same as the orthopedic injury date based on medical opinion and evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11998537 · 2023-08-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4DISCUSSION Regarding the issue of the inpatient medical treatment, as noted above, Dr. Sangnil, stated that applicant's dizziness, impaired memory, vestibular dysfunction, anxiety, blurry vision, gait imbalance, migraine headaches, and insomnia had constituted unsafe living conditions and that applicant already had multiple falls with several leading to head traumas. (App. Exh. 19, p. 3.) We also note that in her Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that Dr. Sangnil's discussion of applicant's condition was consistent with "applicant's presentation, mood, affect, and testimony at trial" and that "applicant credibly testified he previously had significant benefit from inpatient residential programs" indicating that "if not for the earlier treatment, his present functioning level would be considerably worse." (F&O, p. 5, Opinion on Decision.) It is well established that a WCJ's opinions regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 505]; Sheffield Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Perez) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 868 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 358].) Thus, we agree with the WCJ's conclusion that "applicant has met the burden to prove in- patient neuro rehab is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury." (F&O, p.

The WCJ found that applicant met his burden to prove in-patient neuro rehab is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury, supported by medical opinions and applicant's credible testimony.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ18598754 · 2026-03-18 · Goleta District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

Determinative passage · p.1Thereafter on February 25, 2026, the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement. As the issue raised is now moot, we will dismiss the petition for removal.

The issue raised by the petition for removal became moot after the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar at the joint request of the parties for possible settlement.

Official decision · page 1 →