The Hartford

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Long Beach 13
• Van Nuys 13
• Los Angeles 10
• Oakland 7
• Pomona 7
• San Francisco 3
• Santa Ana 3
• Lodi 2
• Marina del Rey 2
• Oxnard 2
• Salinas 2
• San Jose 2

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.

• 33 for the defense
• 23 for the applicant
• 14 returned for more record

Counted over 67 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.

• ADJ16635028 · 2026-06-26 · Long Beach District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Whether Sanctions Should be Imposed Against Lien Claimant and/or their Representative [t]he regulations mandate that lien claimants appear at all lien conferences, either in person or by attorney or non-attorney representative.1 The failure to appear at a hearing is sanctionable conduct.2 Sanctions are appropriate for failures to appear where a reasonable excuse is not offered or the offending party has demonstrated a pattern of such conduct.3 (Emphasis added.)

  The tribunal found that Paperwork & More had notice of the hearing and failed to offer a reasonable excuse for non-appearance; sanctions were appropriate and imposed jointly and severally on Paperwork & More and Stanley B. Johnson, but not on Premier Psychological Services.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ19191631 · 2026-03-19 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Applicant's unrebutted credible testimony established that she worked for Avellino Labs USA. Avellino Labs USA was her employer at the time of injury. Defendants failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3357 presumption of employment. Defendants presented no evidence or witnesses on the issue. Whether or not applicant had a general and special employer at the time of injury is deferred. Applicant acknowledged being paid by Gava Talent Solutions.

  The WCJ found applicant was employed by Avellino based on credible testimony and evidence, and defendants failed to rebut the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357. The Appeals Board affirmed this finding and amended the F&A to clarify the injury arose out of and in the course of employment under Labor Code section 3600.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9749095 · 2026-02-20 · Redding District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, upon preliminary review of the record, we are unable to determine what applicant's scheduled rating is. As such, we will grant reconsideration to further study the record and to determine if it is possible to identify applicant's scheduled rating or if further proceedings may be necessary on this point.

  The Appeals Board could not determine from the record what applicant's scheduled rating is, whether the medical evidence is substantial, or whether apportionment was properly addressed. Further review and possible development of the record are required.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16929084 · 2025-12-22 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ found that applicant was not an employee because he was not receiving wages irrespective of profits.2 The parties fail to acknowledge that the section goes on to specifically address general partners, without limiting language, that have not elected to be excluded from coverage.3 Whether applicant was a working member of a partnership or a general partner, he would be automatically covered by the division regardless. Section 3352 (a)(17)(A) specifically provides that general partners may be excluded from the definition of employee, and thereby excluded from coverage, only when they execute "a written waiver of his or her rights under this chapter stating under penalty of perjury that the person is a qualifying general partner." (Lab. Code, § 3352(a)(17))4 Neither party appears to dispute that applicant is a general partner that remained a practicing attorney, thereby meeting the definition of employee either under the general definition or the explicit inclusion of subsection f of Section 3351. Thus, this issue is not an employment issue, but a coverage issue.

  The WCJ found applicant was not an employee under section 3351(f) because he did not receive wages irrespective of profits, but the Appeals Board found that as a general partner who did not waive coverage, he is covered by the division. The matter involves insurance coverage and must be submitted to arbitration before further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8627591 · 2025-11-07 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2FACTS Decedent applicant died on May 22, 2021, due to heart failure with cardiomyopathy. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, Death Certificate, June 10, 2021.) Decedent had an underlying claim of cumulative injury to multiple body parts, including his feet and hypertension, during an injurious exposure period ending on May 3, 2012. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), June 4, 2025, p. 2, lines 4-8.) Qualified medical evaluator (QME) James Schmitz, M.D., evaluated applicant's death and authored two reports in evidence. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2.) Dr. Schmitz took a history of injury, in pertinent part, as follows:

  The WCAB found that the decedent's death was industrially related based on medical evidence from QME Dr. Schmitz and that the claim was timely filed under Labor Code section 5412, as the date of injury for cumulative injury claims is the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related. Defendant failed to prove the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16635028 · 2025-10-13 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7to the record. Lien claimant offered an explanation regarding the failure to appear, however, the WCJ declined to hold a hearing on the reasonableness of the excuse. We reiterate the following from our April 14, 2025, Opinion and Decision:

  The WCJ imposed sanctions without holding a hearing or making a record regarding whether sanctions were warranted, depriving lien claimant of due process. There is no evidence of a pattern of bad-faith conduct, and no record was made regarding the reasonableness of the explanation for nonappearance.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12248957 · 2025-10-06 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ opined, in one sentence, that applicant's interactions with his superiors regarding compliance with company dress code "appeared to be a good faith personnel action[.]" (Opinion on Decision, p. 5.) We can assume that, in so stating, the WCJ was

  The WCJ failed to properly apply the good faith personnel action defense and must make specific findings on the Rolda factors upon remand.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ9081819 · 2025-07-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.72. The Determination Regarding Apportionment of Permanent Disability Is Correctly Based on the Cause of Disability.

  The surgery was the sole cause of the current disability and no apportionment is merited under current law, as supported by the medical opinions and legal precedent.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16452926 · 2025-05-19 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on March 3, 2025, defendant seeks reconsideration of my February 11, 2025 Findings and Award, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed during the cumulative trauma period from June 13, 2012 through July 7, 2022 as a caregiver in California, by Aegis Senior Communities, LLC, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her right wrist and thumb and fingers, and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 28%. In doing so, I relied upon the opinion of the primary treating physician, Dr. Adam Stoller.

  The WCJ and WCAB panel found the opinion of Dr. Stoller to be substantial evidence supporting a 28% permanent disability rating with 25% apportionment to non-industrial ligamentous laxity, rejecting the defendant's challenges to the medical evidence and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16635028 · 2025-04-14 · Long Beach District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we grant lien claimant's Petition, rescind the Order issued on January 13, 2025, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon return to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ hold a hearing to allow the parties to frame the issues and any stipulations, submit exhibits as evidence, call witnesses, if necessary, lodge any objections, and make their legal arguments.

  The WCJ dismissed the lien without a hearing or evidentiary record, depriving the lien claimant of due process and the opportunity to be heard. The Appeals Board found this violated fundamental rights and public policy favoring decisions on the merits.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10809542 · 2025-04-01 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, since "date of injury" was specifically placed at issue at trial (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of December 17, 2024 trial at p. 2) and the WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that "the date of injury is August 2, 2017...." (Opinion on Decision at p. 8), we will amend the WCJ's decision to include an express finding that the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is August 2, 2017. We will otherwise affirm the WCJ's decision for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, which we adopt, incorporate and quote below.

  The date of injury was found to be August 2, 2017, based on the finding that compensable temporary disability began on that date and the condition became permanent and stationary later, supported by substantial evidence including medical opinions and applicant's testimony.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11369088 · 2025-03-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 377-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)

  The Appeals Board found the medical record on apportionment was not properly developed and granted reconsideration for further development.

  Official decision · page 6 →

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 HARTFORD
• The Hartford
• THE HARTFORD COMPANY
• THE HARTFORD WEST CENTRAL PRODUCE SERVICES, INC.
• THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY INSURANCE
• The Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest
• THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST
• THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
• The Hartford Western WC Claim Center
• THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY
• THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY
• THE HARTFORD 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.