Zenith Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Fresno 13
• Santa Ana 12
• Van Nuys 12
• Riverside 7
• Sacramento 7
• Anaheim 6
• Los Angeles 5
• Stockton 5
• Bakersfield 4
• Oakland 3
• Redding 3
• Santa Barbara 3

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.

• 48 for the defense
• 39 for the applicant
• 10 returned for more record

Counted over 92 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.

• ADJ10966476 · 2026-05-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8performed any investigation into the need for home health care services during that period. Therefore, the record confirms the need for home health care services during the period July 4, 2018 to October 17, 2019. We also conclude that the evidentiary record supports the reasonableness of the services in accordance with the medical treatment utilization schedule for home health care services.

  The WCAB found that the widow was entitled to reimbursement for home health care services from July 4, 2018 to October 17, 2019 based on medical prescriptions and defendant's failure to investigate the need for such care, consistent with Labor Code and case law requirements.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ16567838 · 2026-03-13 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the evidence demonstrates that the going and coming rule was inapplicable because the applicant did not participate in a "local commute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours," as required for the rule to apply. First, his commute does not fit within the definition of "local"2 since applicant testified that he traveled in the van for an hour or more in each direction, from Yuba City, California, located in Sutter County, to Winters, California, located in Yolo County. (3/4/24 Transcript of Record, at pp. 27-28.) As the Court noted, the distance from the work site to applicant's home in Yuba City "was approximately 60 miles" and thus outside the definition of "local." (the applicant, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1169.)

  Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the going and coming rule applies because applicant's commute was not local, did not have fixed hours, and defendant's evidence was unreliable.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ882004 · 2026-02-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensmixed

  Determinative passage · p.9In summary, to the extent that lien claimants' usual and customary charges might be permissible under AD Rule 9792(c), we concur with the WCJ's determination that the record does not support the "extraordinary circumstances related to the unusual nature of the services rendered" necessary to justify fees in excess of the OMFS. Accordingly, we will affirm the WCJ's determination that the OMFS is applicable to lien claimants' charges herein. However, insofar as lien claimants' Petition raises a colorable dispute as to actual receipt of the OMFS reimbursement of its liens, an issue not submitted for decision from trial, we will rescind the WCJ's Findings of Fact that "defendant has paid the liens per the OMFS" and defer the issue. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the parties may informally adjust issues attendant to the payment and receipt of the reimbursement at OMFS rates, with jurisdiction reserved to the WCJ in the event of further dispute.

  The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's determination that the OMFS applies to the lien claimants' charges because the lien claimants failed to prove extraordinary circumstances justifying fees above OMFS, but deferred the issue of actual payment to lien claimants for further informal adjustment at trial level.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ20699429 · 2025-09-15 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the crux of the issue is whether applicant was a seasonal employee or a regular employee, that is, one with the expectation of continued employment because the determination affects calculation of applicant's AWW and temporary disability rate. For the reasons detailed below, we find the preponderance of the evidence does support the WCJ's finding that applicant was not a seasonal employee.

  The Appeals Board found the preponderance of the evidence supported the WCJ's finding that applicant was not a seasonal employee and had a reasonable expectation of continued employment, based on credible testimony and lack of evidence that applicant was informed of seasonal or temporary status.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11995067 · 2025-07-25 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 9, 2022. The WCJ found that while employed on March 1, 2019 as a dry cleaning assistant by defendant, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head, face, and neck and claims injury to various body parts; that Dr. Marcel Ponton was the medical-legal evaluator pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.32; that his report was obtained in violation of section 4062.3; that his report was struck and inadmissible in all further proceedings. She ordered that Dr. Ponton was replaced as the medical-legal neuropsychological evaluator and that the parties should select a new evaluator to conduct a complete medical-legal neuropsychological assessment.

  The Appeals Board found that Dr. Ponton was a treating physician selected from the employer's MPN and not a qualified medical evaluator selected from a panel, so section 4062.3 does not apply to him.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17889850 · 2025-07-07 · San Bernardino District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Further, applicant showed good cause why his case should not be dismissed, as required by the NIT. In the Affidavit, applicant stated that he had previously changed his phone number and forgot to inform his attorney and that he was dealing with some personal hardships that distracted him. (Affidavit, p. 1.) He further stated that he did not intend to abandon or stop pursuing his case and that he was unaware that his lack of communication could lead to dismissal of his claim. (Affidavit, p. 1.) He had reestablished communication with his attorney on or around January 9, 2025, and was committed to actively participating in the legal process going forward. (Affidavit, pp. 1-2.) This verified Affidavit from applicant shows good cause not to dismiss applicant's case.

  Applicant cured the defect of lack of verification by filing a verified affidavit; applicant showed good cause for inactivity; due process requires the case be heard on the merits.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10490434 · 2025-06-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Following Trial, post-Trial argument and submission for decision, Joint Findings of Fact and Joint Award issued on March 10, 2025. Among other things, Applicant was found to have sustained 82% permanent partial disability as a result of the combined effect of the five industrial injuries. Apportionment between the injuries was denied in reliance on the expert opinion of Internal Medicine QME Dr. Benjamin Simon. Consistent with the findings, permanent partial disability indemnity and a Life Pension were awarded. Joint Findings of Fact & Joint Award 3/10/2025 p. 4 (Finding of Fact #6), p. 5 (Joint Award), pp. 8-10 (Opinion on Decision).

  The WCJ relied on the expert opinion of Internal Medicine QME Dr. Benjamin Simon, who found the hypertension disability was inextricably intertwined across all injuries and could not be apportioned by date of injury with reasonable medical probability, leading to denial of apportionment and a single joint and several award.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10675931 · 2025-06-18 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5On this record, we discern no violation of our Rules or other statutory prohibition that would preclude the QME's review of sub rosa video. Accordingly, we will grant defendant's petition, rescind the F&O, and substitute a new finding of fact that defendant may submit the surveillance video dated December 1, 2022, December 9, 2022, December 14, 2022, February 16, 2023, February 21, 2023, and February 22, 2023, to QME Dr. Oehlschlaeger.

  The WCAB found no violation of rules or statutes precluding submission of sub rosa video to the QME and concluded defendant complied with the procedural requirements, warranting granting the petition for removal and allowing submission of the video.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ7763838 · 2025-05-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In the instant matter, defendant Zenith is taking the position that the December 15, 2009 report of Dr. Nelson (Exhibit X1) sufficiently put CIGA on notice of the existence of a cumulative trauma claim so as to establish that same date as the § 5412 date of injury. Zenith argues that CIGA is a sophisticated party, and that therefore, the language in Dr. Nelson's report was sufficient to place it on notice of the potential existence of applicant's cumulative trauma injury.

  The court found that the December 15, 2009 report of Dr. Nelson did not provide sufficient knowledge to fix the date of injury for cumulative trauma. The first report that clearly defined the cumulative trauma injury was the November 17, 2010 report, establishing the §5412 date of injury. The application filed on April 27, 2011 was timely under the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18217235 · 2025-04-29 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In Sanchez, the injured manager also claimed not to have read the waiver, but the arbitrator correctly found that "He is presumed to have read what he signed and he should be bound by its terms." (Id. at p. *8.) Although the arbitrator in Sanchez also stated that the manager had the terms of the waiver explained, that additional fact was not essential to the holding. Applicant filed a valid waiver of workers' compensation coverage excluding him from the definition of employee. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the arbitrator's decision and issue a new decision finding that applicant was not an employee pursuant to Labor Code section 3352(a)(17) and thus excluded from workers' compensation coverage. Since applicant's only argument for not applying the express waiver was the fact that he did not read it, we not need discuss the contours and limits, if any, of the conclusive presumption codified in section 3352(a)(17).

  The applicant executed a valid written waiver of workers' compensation rights, excluding him from coverage under the policy. The waiver is conclusive under Labor Code section 3352(a)(17), and the applicant's subjective intent or failure to read the waiver does not invalidate it.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11706407 · 2025-04-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that the record is clear as to whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion applies. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

  The WCAB found that the issues of jurisdiction and res judicata were not clearly resolved in the prior order and that reconsideration was necessary to fully study the factual and legal issues.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10991851 · 2025-04-03 · Marina del Rey District OfficeStatute of limitationsdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.6In this case, the WCJ did not determine when applicant (1) had knowledge sufficient to establish that she either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that her disability was caused by her employment; and (2) first suffered disability based upon medical evidence indicating when the cumulative effect of her injury ripened into disability. (See Lab. Code, § 5412; see also Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. 221 Cal.App.4th 1116 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257].

  The WCJ did not make the necessary factual determinations to establish the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury, so the issue was deferred 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.

• ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY
• Zenith Insurance Company
• ZENITH
• ZENITH INSURANCE
• ZENITH INSURANCE CO.
• Zenith
• Zenith Insurance Co.
• ZENITH AND TRAVELERS 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.