Wausau Underwriter's Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

• Apportionment1
• Contribution / subrogation1
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Permanent total disability1

Where they appear

• Oakland 6
• Salinas 2
• Marna del Rey 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
• 3 for the applicant
• 1 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.

• ADJ8454650 · 2025-01-24 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7(Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 621, emphasis added.) Here, Dr. Mahawar's medical reporting is not substantial medical evidence on the issue of

  The medical opinion on apportionment was found speculative and not substantial evidence; defendant did not meet burden to prove apportionment; therefore, apportionment was invalid and rejected.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ805478 · 2022-10-21 · Marna del Rey District OfficeContribution / subrogationdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13Therefore, the Arbitrator found that Arrowood has no right to seek contribution/reimbursement for any benefits Arrowood paid after the approval of the two Compromise and Release Agreements against Wausau/Liberty Mutual and Travelers.

  The Arbitrator found that Arrowood had no right to seek contribution/reimbursement for benefits paid after the approval of the Compromise and Release Agreements because joint and several liability ended and Arrowood was only responsible for their pro-rata share or credit for amounts paid.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ3543979 · 2021-03-18 · Salinas District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Hartnell Packing Inc., by and through its insurer, Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company/Liberty Mutual, seeks reconsideration of the December 28, 2020 Findings, Award and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained five industrial injuries, specific and cumulative, to his bilateral shoulders, back, psyche, heart/cardiovascular, sleep and internal while employed as a dock supervisor on July 5, 1996, December 1, 2001, and cumulatively over the periods ending December 31, 2002, October 14, 2003, and June 9, 2005, resulting in permanent total disability. The WCJ determined that though applicant sustained five separate injuries, he was entitled to a single joint award of permanent total disability in the absence of substantial medical evidence to apportion disability between the dates of injury.

  Defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to apportion disability among multiple industrial injuries, and substantial evidence supports applicant's 100% permanent total disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• 2001-eb5 · 2001-04-30Jurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.52s1f The record of the case before us contains no list of issues presented, no admissions and

  The Board found the record incomplete as it lacked a list of issues, admissions and stipulations, and a list of evidence, making it impossible to determine the basis for the WCJ's decision.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ7026552 · 2024-03-25 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Even if we treated the petition as one seeking removal, we would deny it. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

  Applicant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; removal is not warranted.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2023-12-26 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, has filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the October 26, 2023 Notice of Intention to declare applicant a vexatious litigant issued by the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ). We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the record in this matter. Based on our review, the petition seeks reconsideration of a non-final order and will be dismissed.

  The petition was dismissed because it sought reconsideration of a non-final order, which is not permitted under the Labor Code and relevant case law.

• ADJ number not stated · 2023-08-08 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant in pro per has filed a Petition for Reconsideration from the May 30, 2023 Order Cancelling the June 12, 2023 Hearing Notice of Intent to Sanction issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). We 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, the petition seeks reconsideration of a non-final order and will be dismissed. We further note that applicant is not aggrieved.

  The petition sought reconsideration of a non-final order, which is not permitted under Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903, and the applicant was not aggrieved, so the petition was dismissed.

• ADJ7026552 · 2023-02-21 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, in pro per, has filed a Petition for Reconsideration consisting of a handwritten document that is largely illegible and unintelligible. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition.1

  The petition was dismissed because it was skeletal, unintelligible, failed to state grounds for reconsideration, and did not cite the record specifically as required by law and regulations.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7026552 · 2022-04-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On February 3, 2022, applicant, in pro per, filed a Petition for Reconsideration and an "Objection to Judge Lilla Szelenyi's Findings of Fact Order for Attorney Fees." Both consist of handwritten documents that are largely illegible and unintelligible. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition.

  The petition was dismissed because it was skeletal, unintelligible, and failed to state grounds or cite record with specificity as required by Labor Code 5902 and WCAB Rules 10945 and 10972.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9358753 · 2021-06-25 · Salinas District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• 2000-eb2 · 2000-09-15Other disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.110 On July 7, 2000, the Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration of the Findings

  The Board held that the treating physician presumption under section 4062.9 may be raised for the first time at trial but not for the first time on reconsideration, and that it must be raised as a separate issue to avoid waiver.

  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.

• WAUSAU UNDERWRITER'S INSURANCE COMPANY
• Wausau Underwriter's Insurance Company
• WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY
• Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company
• WAUSAU BUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY
• WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES
• Wausau 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.