Arch 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 13
• Los Angeles 9
• Marina del Rey 6
• Riverside 6
• Bakersfield 3
• Oakland 3
• Pomona 3
• San Diego 3
• San Francisco 3
• San Jose 3
• Santa Ana 3
• Oxnard 2

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.

• 33 for the defense
• 24 for the applicant
• 8 returned for more record

Counted over 64 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.

• ADJ21369860 · 2026-05-18 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary

  The medical evidence showed applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024, and no contrary substantial evidence was presented to extend temporary disability beyond that date.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ20709426 · 2026-04-20 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7The holding in Huston requires that in order to be relieved of potential liability for temporary disability for an injured worker capable of returning to modified duties, the employer must establish that work within applicant's restrictions is both available and offered. An offer of regular, modified, or alternative work must be bona fide. (Dennis v. State of California (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 28, 43 (Appeals Board en banc).) A resignation cannot be interpreted as a refusal of modified work and cannot be used as a basis for denying temporary disability if modified work was not offered. (City of Seaside v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sanchez) (1991) 56 Cal.Comp.Cases 598 (writ den.).) Moreover, where an injured worker's resignation is a result of the injury, the worker cannot be said to be unwilling to work. (See Gonzales, supra, at p. 1479.)

  The employer did not make a bona fide offer of modified work in writing and did not appropriately accommodate the applicant's work restrictions. The resignation was due to the effects of the industrial injury, not a voluntary non-industrial reason. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12333976 · 2026-03-19 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6In the instant case, the February 1, 2021 decision resolved the threshold issue of injury AOE/COE in both claims. As such, those findings are considered "final." Per the WCJ, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE while employed by defendant during the period June 6, 2018 through June 6, 2019 to the various body parts outlined under ADJ12812012 and ADJ12333976. (F&O, February 1, 2021.) As set forth above, the remedy for challenging a final order of the WCJ or the Appeals Board is a petition for reconsideration, and the parties have 25 days within which to file a petition from a final decision served by mail upon an address in California. Given that the injury findings were not challenged by either party, they are now final and binding. The WCJ's subsequent August 16, 2021 F&O wherein he finds no injury AOE/COE is therefore void. Due to the potential confusion caused by the conflicting February 1, 2021 and August 16, 2021 decisions, we will reiterate the original injury findings in the new F&O outlined below.

  The WCAB found the February 1, 2021 injury findings final and binding, rescinded the August 16, 2021 contrary findings, and reinstated injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ15105366 · 2026-02-17 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2We 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 discussed below, we will grant applicant's Petition, rescind the F&O, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision.

  The WCAB found that the November 27, 2024 Minutes of Hearing constituted a valid and enforceable order requiring defendant to provide written authorization for medical treatment within 30 days, which defendant failed to timely provide, warranting reconsideration and further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16933451 · 2025-11-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Applicant sustained injury to his left eye when one or more welding sparks entered his left eye on July 19, 2022. According to applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony (12/26/2024 MOH; pages 3-4):

  The Board found credible and unrebutted testimony and medical evidence supporting that the applicant sustained a high velocity eye injury as defined by the statute, entitling him to extended temporary disability benefits.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17726478 · 2025-10-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued July 11, 2025. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant was employed by Samuel Hale, LLC (Hale) as the general employer and DiBara Masonry (DiBara) as the special employer, that applicant's employment with Hale was subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement with the UFCW, that there was a valid alternative dispute resolution agreement, and that the WCAB does not have jurisdiction. The WCJ ordered the case dismissed without prejudice, invalidated applicant's election under Labor Code 5500.5,1 and ordered the case off calendar.

  The WCJ found a valid collective bargaining agreement and ADR agreement, leading to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, but the WCAB found the record incomplete and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14216452 · 2025-09-12 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, PQME Dr. Bruce Huffer fails to meet even a rudimentary level of review and analysis sufficient to be considered substantial evidence. His opinions are based on an evaluation now more than three years old. It also appears he has not reviewed some of the relevant medical reporting. The failure to discuss the medical record and how it does or does not affect his opinions renders his reporting unsubstantial. This conclusory reporting has been consistent over six reports. It is clear returning to PQME Dr. Huffer at this time would result only in further delay without meaningful result.

  PQME Dr. Bruce Huffer's reports lack substantial evidence due to failure to discuss relevant medical records and provide reasoning, rendering his 0% permanent disability rating unsubstantial. Further medical development is necessary.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16305170 · 2025-06-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11In conjunction with applicant's credible testimony, the WCJ relied on the substantial opinions of Dr. Sirakoff to make findings. "According to the primary treating physician and the applicant's credible testimony, the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury while performing the above job duties. There is substantial evidence to support a finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the neck and back due to a cumulative trauma injury while working at Telecare Corporation as an LVN." (Report, page 5.)

  Applicant's credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from Dr. Sirakoff established cumulative trauma injury AOE/COE to neck and back; PQME Dr. Bernicker's opinion was not substantial evidence due to reliance on incorrect legal theory and inadequate medical history.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ15175189 · 2025-06-19 · Pomona District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Confronted with medical and testimonial evidence appearing to indicate that neither applicant nor the QME seems to have believed that applicant's psyche injury had any significant relationship to her employment for TBS, we therefore believe it was incumbent on the WCJ to defer the determination of whether applicant sustained any psyche injury AOE/COE, pending resolution of the issue raised by that testimony.

  The Board found insufficient evidence to determine whether the psyche injury arose out of and in the course of employment with both JITB and TBS, noting the need for further development of the record to clarify employment periods and injury causation.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10404221 · 2024-12-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11period June 30, 1994 to October 9, 2019, as a general manager, occupational group number: 212, at Burbank, California, by Camile's, Inc., claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, cardiovascular system (in the form of hypertension) and psychiatric system. 2. The issue of what period(s) applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury is deferred. 3. The issue of the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is deferred. 4. The issue of the period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5 is deferred. 5. All other issues are deferred.

  The WCJ failed to make findings on the period(s) of cumulative trauma injury, date of injury under Labor Code section 5412, and period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5, requiring further development and deferral of these issues.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ12032540 · 2024-11-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The WCJ rejected Dr. Perry's opinions because there was no evidence that the applicant was taking NSAIDs or steroids around the time of the stroke. Indeed, the record shows that decedent was taken off prednisone and naproxen in early 2015 and was allergic to ibuprofen. Nevertheless, the WCJ does not appear to evaluate Dr. Perry's opinion that even if decedent stopped taking medications increasing blood pressure in 2015, it could have still contributed to the 2018 stroke. We thus believe that the record should be developed on this issue, and the issue

  The WCJ rejected the industrial causation of the stroke due to lack of evidence of medication use near the stroke date, but the WCAB found the record insufficient and ordered further development to clarify the causative link and medical probability of the medications contributing to the stroke.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12777220 · 2024-10-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10The undersigned WCJ also found the medical treatment services provided by Dr. Michael Bazel rendered on July 14, 2020; July 21, 2020; August 28, 2020; September 3, 2020; October 7, 2020; February 19, 2021; March 19, 2021; September 7, 2021 (Exhibit 15) to be reasonable and necessary medical treatment to be paid by defendant per Official Medical Fee Schedule pursuant to Labor Code section 5307.1. The WCAB to retain jurisdiction over any dispute regarding the amount owed per Official Medical Fee Schedule. The undersigned WCJ also found the medical reports of Dr. Michael Bazel September 7, 2020 (Exhibit 9), September 8, 2020 (Exhibit 10), September 9, 2020 (Exhibit 11), September 10, 2020 (Exhibit 12), September 11, 2020 (Exhibit 13), September 14, 2020 (Exhibit 14); the medical reports of Dr. Arash Pershen dated July 28, 2020 (Exhibit 16); and the medical report of Dr. Bruce Wasserman dated August 27, 2020 (Exhibit 17) failed to comply with Labor Code 5703(a)(2) are inadmissible, and the cost associates with the reports are disallowed. All other issued were deferred, and the matter Ordered off calendar.

  The WCJ found medical treatment services by Dr. Bazel to be reasonable and necessary, payable by defendant under the Official Medical Fee Schedule.

  Official decision · page 10 →

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 21.

• ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY
• ARCH INSURANCE
• Arch Insurance Company
• ARCH INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
• ARCH INDEMNITY INSURANCE
• Arch Indemnity Ins. Co.
• Arch Indemnity Insurance
• Arch Insurance Group
• ARCH INSURANCE CO.
• Arch Insurance
• ARCH INSURANCE, ADMINSTERED BY SEDGWICK CMS
• ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY HEALTHCARE, INC.

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.