Zurich American 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

• Van Nuys 37
• Los Angeles 24
• Santa Ana 19
• Anaheim 17
• Oakland 16
• Riverside 13
• San Diego 11
• San Francisco 11
• Marina del Rey 10
• Sacramento 10
• San Bernardino 9
• Santa Rosa 8

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.

• 98 for the defense
• 94 for the applicant
• 38 returned for more record

Counted over 222 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.

• ADJ17096552 · 2026-09-04 · San Diego District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8disability. We defer the issue of temporary disability after February 1, 2024 pending further development of the record. Similarly, we defer the issue of any periods of temporary disability preceding August 10, 2022 pending further development of the record. Although the defendant also casts doubt on the temporary disability period based on “evidence” of applicant’s employment as a home health aid, the only evidence in the record was applicant’s testimony that he “stopped taking care of his son through IHSS in 2022.” (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of March 16, 2022 trial at p. 4.) Accordingly, there is no evidence that applicant was employed during any periods for which we have found temporary disability. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Zurich’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award of June 15, 2026 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings and Award of June 15, 2026 is AMENDED as follows:

  The WCAB amended the temporary disability period to start from August 10, 2022 through February 1, 2024, based on medical evidence from QME Dr. Hendel and the hospitalization of the applicant. The issue of temporary disability before or after these dates was deferred for further development.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ18246803 · 2026-08-28 · Los Angeles OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the June 12, 2026 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury with defendant on an industrial basis. Applicant claimed that during the period from June 4, 2021 through September 23, 2021 she sustained a cumulative trauma injury to her circulatory system, including a stroke, causing impaired sleep and injury to her brain, left leg, and left arm arising out of and occurring in the course of employment as a security guard. Applicant contends that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact and that the findings of fact do not support the order that applicant take nothing in this matter.

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's findings were based on an incorrect date of the stressful encounter and that the medical opinions lacked substantial evidence due to this error. The case was remanded for further development of the record with correct dates to obtain substantial medical opinions on causation.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8215781 · 2026-08-25 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on March 25, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed during the period September 12, 2008 to December 7, 2010, as a housekeeper, sustained an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her neck, right shoulder, low back, sleep, both wrists, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, stomach, fibromyalgia and psyche, resulting in 100% permanent disability. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in awarding 100% permanent disability, arguing that the evidence does not support a total loss of future earning capacity. Specifically, defendant asserts that no medical reporting or vocational expert testimony establishes that applicant has sustained such a loss.

  The WCAB found substantial medical evidence supporting the 100% permanent disability rating, correcting the occupational group number to reflect dual occupations (housekeeper and child monitor) and applying the appropriate combined and added impairment ratings under Vigil.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16563992 · 2026-08-17 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on June 18, 2026. II. Turning to the merits, we will first consider applicant’s contention that the WCJ proceeded to trial in her absence. In our en banc decision in Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 830 (Appeals Board en banc) (Chicago Dogs), we stated that: In conducting our preliminary review, we observe that in addition to our constitutional mandate to accomplish substantial justice, the following fundamental legal principles must guide us:

  The WCAB found that the WCJ proceeded to trial without applicant present, denied a virtual appearance request improperly, and showed bias and unqualified opinions, violating due process. The WCJ was disqualified and the decision rescinded to ensure a fair hearing.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ1680248 · 2026-08-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeContribution / subrogationmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1324. The Arbitrator found, based on the medical report of the Agreed Medical Evaluator, the value of future medical treatment, the MSA and approval by CMS and the fact the AME found applicant's rheumatoid arthritis to various body parts was aggravated by his employment at California Pizza Kitchen and applicant's fibromyalgia was aggravated by his employment at California Pizza Kitchen, the Arbitrator finds the amount of the settlement is reasonable. 25. The Arbitrator found that American Home Assurance Company did not fail to file a timely Petition for Contribution against Hartford because Hartford had no liability for the second different continuous trauma injury. 26. The Arbitrator, based on the findings above, found that Zurich American Insurance Company is responsible for 29% of the amount of the Compromise and Release Agreement and 29% of the Stipulated Award of temporary disability. 27. The Arbitrator found that Zurich American Insurance Company is entitled to a credit for the sums they paid to the applicant in an amount to be adjusted between the parties with the Arbitrator retaining jurisdiction in case of a dispute. That credit is limited by the fact they are responsible for 29% of that amount paid and, therefore, the credit is 71% of the amount that they paid. 28.

  Zurich American Insurance Company was found responsible for 29% of the Compromise and Release Agreement and the Stipulated Award of temporary disability based on insurance coverage periods and injury periods.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ14513544 · 2026-08-04 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Thus, as a matter of due process, a notice of intention must clearly state the reason(s) for its issuance and identify a means to respond. Here, the NIT issued by the WCJ failed to inform the parties that they could make a showing of good cause prior to the Order issuing and it failed to set forth the period of time in which the parties had to act. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10421; 10832(c).) Arguably, if the WCJ’s intention was to allow parties to object on the record at a hearing, rescheduling the hearing scheduled for April 25, 2023, without reissuing the NIT, did not give proper notice and meant that Zurich was denied the opportunity to be heard. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the WCJ intended to go forward with a hearing on the rescheduled date of May 2, 2023, as there were no Minutes of Hearing created pursuant to WCAB Rule 10787. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787). Because Zenith was not afforded adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, the corresponding Order issued thereafter is invalid. Further, even if the NIT and the Order had been properly issued and served, we are unable to provide meaningful review due to the lack of a record.

  The WCJ's Notice of Intention to Sanction failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, violating due process, and no evidentiary record was created to support the Order of Sanctions, leading to rescission of the Order.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13491649 · 2026-07-31 · Lodi District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders, Awards issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 12, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that:

  The WCJ found 33% permanent disability based on medical and vocational evidence, rejecting applicant's claim for 100% total disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the merits and record completeness.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16000363 · 2026-07-29 · Oakland District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132amixed

  Determinative passage · p.8For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that reconsideration of the decision of April 22, 2026 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the decision of April 22, 2026 is AFFIRMED, except that it is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the TTD and PTD rates to reflect the 2022 statutory maximum rates for PTD fixed as of the date of injury and TTD payable at rates in effect at the time of payment, consistent with Labor Code provisions.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ3375264 · 2026-07-21 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9evidence to support a denial of benefits. (citation.)” (Kyle v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (City and County of San Francisco) (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 614, 621.) Here, in her Opinion on Decision (OOD), the WCJ provided the following explanation regarding her finding that there was no substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the neck and bilateral shoulders during the periods from March 12, 2000 through March 12, 2001 (ADJ4499046) and from August 23, 2003 through August 23, 2004 (ADJ3207121): Dr. Feiwell, at the request of CIGA, evaluates Applicant, over four years after the Order issued dismissing the original Petition for Change of Administration. In his report of December 12, 2018, he states “At this juncture, I can state that very little if any of complaints or findings are likely due to cumulative trauma and are due to the sequalae of the specific injury, his prior car accident and most significantly his cerebral palsy.” 21 He further states, “I cannot state with medical certainly that any of his increasing complaints of pain are due to anything other than his underlying cerebral palsy and the prior specific injury in 2003.” 22 He does request the complete medical file and treating physicians records, as well as a formal job analysis.

  The WCJ found no substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the neck and bilateral shoulders during the periods from March 12, 2000 through March 12, 2001 and from August 23, 2003 through August 23, 2004, based on medical reports that lacked sufficient reasoning or relied on inaccurate job histories.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10326531 · 2026-07-21 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Award and Order of April 17, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed as a carpenter during a cumulative period comprising the day December 29, 2014, applicant sustained injury to his left upper extremity, left lower extremity and nervous system, but not to “urology” and to the psyche causing the need for further medical treatment. In finding industrial injury, it was found that applicant’s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. All other issues were deferred. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding industrial injury, arguing that the WCJ erred in not finding the claim barred by the statute of limitations and arguing that the WCJ erred in following the opinions of agreed medical evaluator neurologist Ronald N. Kent, M.D. rather than the opinions of internist qualified medical evaluator Minal Borsada, M.D. We have received an answer, and the WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report). We will affirm the substance of the WCJ’s decision for the reasons stated below and for the reasons stated in the Report quoted below. However, we will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ’s decision to correct a typographical error in the Stipulated Facts.

  The WCJ found the applicant sustained an industrial injury based on the medical opinion of AME Dr. Ronald Kent, and the claim was timely filed within the statute of limitations, supported by credible testimony of claim form filing and the presumption of compensability under Labor Code §5402.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18031412 · 2026-06-26 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Medland Medical seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 6, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that, while employed as a Machine Operator/Packer, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her bilateral arms, bilateral hands, back, bilateral hips, and bilateral legs. The WCJ further found that the case in chief settled via Compromise and Release with an Order Approving issuing October 14, 2025; that lien claimant did not meet the burden of proof on the injury AOE/COE, such that the lien is disallowed in its entirety. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that lien claimant's lien be disallowed in its entirety.

  The lien claimant failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish injury AOE/COE based on the medical record and evidentiary record submitted. The ultimate conclusion of industrial causation was deferred to the Trier of Fact, and the WCJ found no sufficient evidence to support the lien claimant's claim.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14589712 · 2026-06-12 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based upon our review of Dr. Stoller's reports, including the medical legal report dated December 12, 2024, Dr. Stoller reviewed medical records, took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. As such, we find that Dr. Stoller's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine. As explained by Dr. Stoller, applicant sustained a 6% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE category II due to loss of range of motion and pain as well as the injury's effects on applicant's activities and daily living (ADLs) including issues with standing and sitting. (Joint Exhibit 104 p. 27.) Applicant noted that he can tolerate sitting for sixty (60) minutes, standing and walking for two (2) hours, and lifting up to thirty (30) pounds. (Id. at p. 2.) Applicant also noted significant pain when walking up and down stairs and driving more than two hours. (Ibid.) We note that in his report dated August 1, 2025, Dr. Stoller confirmed that causation was due to the cumulative injury ending on October 25, 2018. (Joint Exhibit 105.)

  Dr. Stoller's reports were found to constitute substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine, including detailed examination, history, and explanation of causation.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 43.

• ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
• ZURICH NORTH AMERICA
• Zurich American Insurance Company
• AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY
• American Zurich Insurance Company
• Zurich North America
• ZURICH
• Zurich American Insurance
• AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE
• ZURICH INSURANCE
• ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY
• ZURICH AMERICAN 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.