York Risk Services Group

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 10
• Oakland 8
• Los Angeles 5
• Sacramento 5
• Pomona 4
• Anaheim 3
• Santa Ana 3
• Marina del Rey 2
• Salinas 2
• Stockton 2
• Long Beach 1
• Oxnard 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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 20 for the applicant
• 20 for the defense
• 7 returned for more record

Counted over 47 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.

Decisions

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

• ADJ14834670 · 2026-05-26 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant State of California, Department of Social Services, In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the applicant (decedent), while employed during the period December 3, 2020, through December 17, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by COVID-19, resulting in death, and that IHSS did not meet their burden of proof to establish that decedent had concurrent employment as at the time of his injury.

  The QME report by Dr. Betsy Kuriakose was found to be well-reasoned, based on an adequate history and evidence, supporting the finding that decedent contracted COVID-19 during employment, resulting in death. The defendant's arguments against causation and alternative sources of infection were rejected due to lack of evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10728990 · 2025-07-25 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The applicant appears to be extremely focused on the mechanism of exposure. Dr. Allems, a toxicology, occupational and environmental medicine, and internal medicine specialist who was acting as panel QME following the panel selection process for a represented applicant, opined as to the time lines supported by the applicant's medical testing.

  The panel QME's medical opinion established that the applicant contracted HIV many years before the claimed date of injury, making the claim for industrial injury arising from exposure during employment unsupported.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ9464655 · 2024-08-22 · Anaheim District OfficeApportionmentmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1We issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration on Board Motion in this matter on February 18, 2021 (February Order) to study further the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration. (Lab. Code, § 5900(b).) This is our Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration.

  The board corrected the prior decision to accurately reflect the comparative negligence percentages of the parties involved, including the applicant, third-party truck driver, and defendant employer, and clarified the method for calculating third-party credit based on total damages rather than settlement amount, leading to a mixed outcome with deferred credit determination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10661601 · 2024-05-21 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a March 12, 2021 Joint Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) wherein a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, and bilateral shoulders. The WCJ also found the July 24, 2020 report of treater, Dr. Khalid Ahmed, to be inadmissible. Applicant alleges that the report should have been admitted under Labor Code section2 5502(d)(3) as it was unavailable at the time of the July 6, 2020 mandatory settlement conference (MSC).

  The July 24, 2020 medical report was not available at the July 6, 2020 MSC and thus should be admitted under Labor Code section 5502(d)(3). Due process and fair hearing principles support admitting the report to ensure full development of the evidentiary record and substantial evidence support.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ928309 · 2023-09-19 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Awards issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on March 16, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant while employed as a custody assistant by defendant County of Los Angeles sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of the employment on August 10, 2005, to her lumbar spine, right shoulder and right hip, resulting in permanent partial disability of 14% (case ADJ928309) and during a cumulative period ending January 11, 2007, to her back and digestive system, resulting in permanent partial disability of 60% (case ADJ3770629.)

  The WCJ's prior finding of permanent partial disability was challenged by applicant's petition for reconsideration seeking permanent total disability, but the WCAB remanded the case for further proceedings on stipulations without ruling on the merits.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11310005 · 2023-07-20 · Oakland 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 August 27, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that based on the reports of pain medicine qualified medical examiner (QME) James B. Shaw, M.D., applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE), to her head, back, neck, and shoulder; and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her injury claim.

  Dr. Shaw's medical opinions were found not to be substantial evidence because they were based on an inadequate medical history and lack of review of treating physicians' records, leading to rescission of the prior Findings and Order and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11784473 · 2023-07-12 · Oxnard District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, in his February 27, 2019, report, as quoted above, QME Dr. Sherman stated his conclusion that 3% of applicant's 5% impairment was nonindustrial and 2% of the 5% impairment was "consistent with his described work activity." (Def. Exh. A, p. 5.) Dr. Sherman did not in any way, address the factors necessary to accurately determine apportionment of applicant's disability. (Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra.) Also, in his March 12, 2020, report, PTP Dr. Haronian, stated that he would apportion 50% of applicant's disability to the 2010 slip and fall accident, and 50% to the cumulative industrial injury. (App. Exh. 1, p. 7.) Although Dr. Haronian stated his conclusion as to apportionment, he did not provide any explanation and/or analysis supporting his conclusion. (Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra.) Additionally, it appears that neither doctor was provided any medical records pertaining to applicant's 2010 slip and fall injury. As such, the doctors were not given an accurate factual history relevant to whether applicant had any pre-existing disability caused by the 2010 injury. Thus, neither the report from Dr. Sherman nor the report from Dr. Haronian constitute substantial evidence regarding the issue of apportionment.

  Defendant did not meet burden of proof on apportionment as no substantial evidence supported apportionment; prior medical reports lacked necessary explanation and factual history for apportionment; applicant's cumulative injury caused 45% permanent disability with no apportionment.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11114734 · 2023-06-06 · Pomona District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The Joint Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision dated March 13, 2023 found the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof of injury as alleged, both with regard to the specific as well as the cumulative trauma. The applicant was not found to be a credible witness as to the allegations made for both claimed injuries. Those findings were based on the entirety of the record submitted at time of trial with the conclusion the applicant shall take nothing.

  Applicant failed to sustain burden of proof of injury; WCJ credibility determinations were given great weight and supported by substantial evidence; defense witnesses' testimony was more credible; QME Dr. Lee's medical opinions were considered but did not overcome credibility findings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11337154 · 2023-06-01 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3applicant, has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration with respect to the psyche aspect of this case. The undersigned issued a Findings and Award wherein the thyroid aggravation was deemed industrial and not subject to the good faith action defense per McCoy/Brooks but the applicant did not meet their burden of proof with respect to a psyche injury per Rolda. In addition, Verga applied to bar some of the events as they were not actual events and due to applicant's behavior. To that end, a 5% award with future medical care issued. Defendant, County of Ventura, did not file a petition for reconsideration of the decision. Applicant's recitation of the facts do not provide a complete picture and as such they will be recapped here.

  Applicant did not meet burden of proof for psyche injury compensability due to lack of objective evidence and subjective allegations of bias not found reasonable.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10877533 · 2023-05-01 · San Bernardino District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of February 4, 2020, the workers' compensation judge ("WCJ") found that on January 19, 2017, applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and that the lien claimant, Joyce Altman Interpreting, failed to prove that it actually provided services and failed to prove that the applicant actually received medical treatment. The WCJ also found a failure of proof that the lien claimant's services were reasonable and necessary.

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the lien claimant failed to prove that the interpreting services were actually provided and reasonably necessary, based on contradictory evidence from the applicant's statements to Dr. Sofia and lack of witness testimony to verify the services.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13913670 · 2023-02-17 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Both parties agreed that the AMA guide rating was 83%. There is no dispute that rating is substantial medical evidence. The issue here is whether applicant has successfully rebutted the permanent disability rating derived from application of the AMA Guide impairment ratings by establishing that he is not able to benefit from vocational rehabilitation and is not capable of returning to the open labor market, and has therefore lost all of his earning capacity.

  Applicant successfully rebutted the AMA Guide impairment rating of 83% by showing he is permanently and totally disabled due to urinary incontinence preventing return to work, supported by medical and vocational expert opinions.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9602729 · 2023-02-03 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, the delay in payment of settlement proceeds owed to applicant was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not offer any evidence regarding any of the mitigating Ramirez factors. While defendant introduced evidence that payment was issued, that does not establish that defendant actually sent the check to applicant via US mail. Defendant is entitled to rely on the US Postal Service for mailing correspondence, but in this case, defendant offered no evidence that it put the payment in the mail. Defendant provided no testimonial evidence from claims adjusters or supervisors regarding the purported payment. Therefore, we find a penalty appropriate to the facts herein, plus interest and attorney's fees.

  The delay in payment of settlement proceeds was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not provide evidence of mailing the payment or mitigating factors. Therefore, penalties, interest and attorney fees were awarded to applicant.

  Official decision · page 4 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 18.

• YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.
• YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP
• York Risk Services Group
• YORK RISK SERVICES
• YORK
• York Risk Services Group, Inc.
• York Risk Services
• YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC., A SEDGWICK COMPANY
• YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Sedgwick Company
• YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, a SEDGWICK COMPANY
• YORK RISK SERVICES, INC., A SEDGWICK COMPANY
• YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, A SEDGWICK 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 claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.