California WCABClaims administrator
Applied Risk Services
Applied Risk Services is named as a claims administrator in 18 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Permanent total disability (2) and Substantial evidence / credibility (1). Defense most often ran through Law Offices of Joan Sheppard (6). The employer appearing most often is Matthews Skyline Logging, Incorporated (2). The office that heard the most of them is Santa Rosa.
- Decisions
- 18
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 6
- District offices
- 12
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
By disputed issue
Decisions naming this claims administrator, counted by what was in dispute.
- 333%
- 222%
- 111%
- 111%
- 111%
- 111%
9 decisions across the groups shown
- Law Offices of Joan Sheppard6
- Michael Sullivan & Associates3
- Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen1
9 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
- Matthews Skyline Logging, Incorporated2
- T.S. Logging2
- Action Property Management, INC.1
- B & E Feed and Supply1
- BMG Roofing1
- Dependable Care Ambulance INC.1
- First Premier Healthcare Services LLC1
- Glorious Ag Services, INC.1
- Imperial Sprinkler Supply, INC.1
- Los Laureles Lodge1
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 18 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.
- ADJ10219413 · 2026-05-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on September 9, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his thoracic spine, right shoulder, chest/ribs, right-upper extremity, and in the form of peripheral vascular disease/deep vein thrombosis, while employed as a log chocker on October 5, 2015. The WCJ further found that the injury caused permanent disability of 61%, after apportionment.
The WCJ found permanent disability of 61% after apportionment but did not find permanent total disability; applicant argued for total disability relying on vocational expert opinion, but the Appeals Board did not rule on the merits and returned the matter for settlement consideration.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10219413 · 2025-12-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 9, 2025 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his thoracic spine, right shoulder, chest/ribs, right-upper extremity, and in the form of peripheral vascular disease/deep vein thrombosis, while employed as a log chocker on October 5, 2015. The WCJ further found that the injury caused permanent disability of 61%, after apportionment.
The WCAB found the record incomplete and lacking substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision on permanent disability and apportionment, warranting further development and reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10841453 · 2024-05-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We 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, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision and substitute it with a new Findings and Order, that strikes Findings of Fact number two (2)1 and admits applicant's Exhibit 1 (Medical report from Gayle Windman, Ph.D., dated March 28, 2022), which the WCJ discusses in the Report. We will otherwise restate the WCJ's findings and order.
The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial medical evidence supporting the claim that dizziness and psychological symptoms arose out of and in the course of employment, relying on AME opinions and rejecting the applicant's expert who did not review medical records.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ13220426 · 2023-03-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4III. DISCUSSION The appeal filed by applicant essentially questions the substantially of the medical findings of Dr. Peter Alexakis, the PQME. These defense Exhibits, A, B and C, were found by the court to be accurate, well-reasoned and clear. They were held to be substantial medical evidence and better evidence that the reports of the treating physicians. Applicant argues that the PQME's failure to find injury to the applicant's neck and back are incorrect and speculative. They argue that the reports do not properly review all of the applicant's medical records and that the records, specifically the Facey medical records, are not offered into evidence. Applicant asserts that the PQME in the report dated 8/15/2020 indicates that he reviewed a Rehab 90 job analysis stating that applicant lifted up to 10 lbs. They refute this by asserting that the applicant testified to lifting objects up to 50 lbs. They argue that the PQME may have reviewed an unauthenticated job analysis. None of the arguments made by applicant on appeal were raised at the time of trial.
The court found the PQME reports to be accurate, well-reasoned, and substantial medical evidence, giving them greater weight than treating physicians' reports. The applicant's arguments against the PQME's findings were not raised at trial and were speculative or waived.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ9900622 · 2022-07-08 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The parties submitted a total of 39 exhibits which included multiple medical reports, 4 Cross- examination transcripts, 10 vocational expert reports, and medical reporting from 6 different specialties. The Court reviewed each page of the evidence and outlined the multiple findings from the various doctors in describing the basis for the finding that the applicant was entitled to a finding of 100% total permanent disability.
The WCJ found applicant 100% totally permanently disabled based on the persuasive vocational expert opinion that applicant was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and incapable of employment, and the combined medical evidence rated at 98% disability. The WCAB adopted this reasoning and found no error.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ11438289 · 2021-02-17 · Salinas District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Applicant sustained injury AOE/COE. Applicant did not materially deviate from his work errand at the time of his motor vehicle accident.
Applicant did not materially deviate from his work errand at the time of the motor vehicle accident and the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, supported by credible testimony and legal precedent.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ11982169 · 2024-05-20 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Here, we need not reach the issue of whether the February 22, 2024 Order relieving applicant's counsel as attorney of record was based upon good cause, as the Order granting Ratto Law's petition was issued prematurely in violation of WCAB Rule 10605(a) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a).) Such violation renders the Order void ab initio. 3
The WCJ's Order relieving counsel was issued prematurely in violation of procedural rules, denying due process and a proper hearing; thus, the Board granted removal and rescinded the Order.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ10340498 · 2023-11-08 · Anaheim 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.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ order or that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ11451772 · 2023-09-15 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on July 18, 2023 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12508021 · 2022-10-24 · Bakersfield 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 denied the Petition for Removal because 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 → - ADJ7976799 · 2022-10-14 · Riverside 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 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 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 no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12340832 · 2022-09-14 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.8Accordingly, we affirm the F&A, except that we defer the issue of whether defendant was entitled to the credit for temporary disability overpayments. (Finding of Fact 7, Award "a," and Further Award.)
The WCJ awarded credit for TTD overpayment without evidence or explanation; the WCAB deferred this issue for further proceedings to create a record and consider legal principles.
Official decision · page 8 →
Also recorded as
The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.
- APPLIED RISK SERVICES
- APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.
- Applied Risk Services
- Applied Risk Services, Inc.
- APPLIED RISK
- Applied Risk
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.
Also on this
Private workspace
Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.
Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.