Wesco Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR2
• Liens1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141
• Statute of limitations1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 2
• Oxnard 2
• Sacramento 2
• Anaheim 1
• Long Beach 1
• Riverside 1
• San Francisco 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.

• 6 for the defense
• 3 for the applicant
• 2 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.

• ADJ11448862 · 2026-01-26 · Riverside District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ did not award costs, sanctions, or attorney's fees in the April 16, 2019 NOI.

  The WCJ did not award costs, sanctions, or attorney's fees in the Notice of Intention; no objections or petitions for reconsideration were filed within the statutory period; defendant paid the amount due promptly; therefore, claims for costs, attorney's fees, and sanctions were denied and no bad faith was found.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12163448 · 2024-11-04 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7We now turn to the issue of defendant's liability for the medical evaluation and treatment provided to applicant by Dr. Haghighinia.

  Defendant denied liability for the January 20, 2019 injury and did not offer medical treatment for that injury, allowing applicant to self-procure treatment. QME Dr. Nottage found the injury compensable, and defendant later stipulated to injury, making defendant liable for the self-procured treatment by Dr. Haghighinia.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11073181 · 2022-03-30 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, defendant is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision regarding whether applicant is entitled to treatment outside of the medical provider network (MPN). (See Babbitt v. Ow Jing (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 70, 78-79 (Appeals Board en banc) [applicant's substantive right to medical treatment is unchanged by the MPN statutes which "simply allow another method for providing that medical treatment"].) Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)

  The Appeals Board applied the removal standard to the interlocutory issue of entitlement to treatment outside the MPN and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11505778 · 2022-03-25 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3[35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].)

  The PQME report was found to be flawed and not substantial evidence due to failure to address cumulative trauma and job duties, leading to rescission of the prior order and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10390527 · 2022-03-22 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ issued the F&O on January 7, 2022, finding in pertinent part that "the statutes of limitations" were tolled until the applicant was advised of the statutory deadlines for filing a claim under Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 729 [39 Cal. Comp. Cases 768]. The opinion further determined that no claim form was ever provided to applicant by his employer. Accordingly, the WCJ determined that none of the three continuous trauma applications were barred by "any statute of limitations." (F&O, Joint Finding of Fact No. 1.)

  The WCJ's original decision did not clearly identify the specific statutes at issue or the date of injury under section 5412, which is necessary to determine if the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify these issues.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16327959 · 2025-12-26 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant sought removal1 of the Findings of Fact, Order (F&O) issued on September 25, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that "[t]he short, approximately three second video of the applicant's calf muscle shown to the AME during the AME appointment is permissible communication during a regular examination." (F&O, Finding of Fact No. 20.)2 Based on this finding of fact, the WCJ denied defendant's Petition for Replacement Panel.

  Defendant failed to establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the showing of the video to the AME during the evaluation, and reconsideration was an adequate remedy for any final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16042609 · 2025-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the "Order Rejecting Applications for Adjudication of Claim" issued on July 26, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ rejected multiple applications for adjudication because applicant has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a pre-filing order, and that applicant failed to seek permission to file the new applications pursuant to the pre-filing order.

  The petitioner failed to comply with the vexatious litigant pre-filing order and did not obtain permission to file new applications, so removal was denied because substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was not shown and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20809270 · 2025-10-09 · Sacramento 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, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate

  The Appeals Board denied removal because the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9981669 · 2023-09-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. As a preliminary matter, we note that a petition for reconsideration is generally considered denied by operation of law if the Appeals Board does not grant the petition within 60 days after it is filed. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) However, we believe that "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. This occurred because the Appeals Board had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision, holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's inadequacies should fall on [a party]." (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) In this case, the Appeals Board failed to act on both lien claimant and defendant's Petitions for Reconsideration within 60 days of filing through no fault of the parties. Therefore, we find that our time to act on both petitions was tolled.

  The WCAB found that the time to act on the petitions for reconsideration was tolled due to the Appeals Board's failure to act within 60 days through no fault of the parties, and thus granted reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11256912 · 2023-02-21 · Oxnard 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 proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  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.

• WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY
• Wesco Insurance Company
• WESCO INSURANCE
• WESCO INSURANCE CO.
• WESCO INS CO

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.