Arrowood Indemnity

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE1
• Apportionment1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 2
• Marina del Rey 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Diego 1
• San Jose 1
• Santa Barbara 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 insurance carrier does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 4 for the defense
• 2 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 7 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work.

Decisions

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

• ADJ2862836 · 2024-11-04 · Marina del Rey District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.71. Applicant's second major point out is well taken. The WCJ determined in her Findings of Fact that Defendant denied the Applicant medical treatment from 4/28/2017 to 3/9/2020. Applicant contends that the penalties awarded pursuant to Labor Code Section 5814 should reflect the same period as the finding of denial of medical treatment. After additional consideration the WCJ agrees. Therefore it is recommended that Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration be granted in part and the Findings of Fact be amended as follows:

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that the penalty period should match the period of denial of medical treatment from 4/4/2017 to 3/9/2020, and amended the Findings of Fact accordingly.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ1351389 · 2022-07-06 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1In our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of June 17, 2019, we affirmed the unapportioned award of permanent and total disability issued by the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) in his Second Amended Findings and Award of September 22, 2017. In its decision of May 7, 2021, however, the Court of Appeal annulled our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of June 17, 2019 and remanded the matter to the WCAB for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. In sum, the Court concluded that the award of 100 percent permanent disability must be annulled because: (a) the psychiatric reports that the WCAB relied on did not constitute substantial evidence since Dr. Sidle relied on an incorrect legal theory, the alternative path theory, that was rejected in Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 607 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680]; and (b) applicant's evidence was otherwise insufficient to rebut the scheduled rating for her psychiatric disability.

  The Court of Appeal annulled the prior permanent disability award because the psychiatric reports relied upon were not substantial evidence due to reliance on a rejected legal theory, and the applicant's evidence was insufficient to rebut the scheduled rating for psychiatric disability. The Court also clarified the burden of proof for apportionment and the conditions for a single award of permanent disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ4709903 · 2021-11-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentmixed

  Determinative passage · p.26APPORTIONMENT Based upon the medical report of treating psychologist A. Joseph Glaser, Ph.D., dated June 29, 2021, and applicant's Qualified Medical Examiner (internal medicine) Timothy Reynolds, M.D. dated October 22, 2019, based upon applicant's testimony, it is found that there is legal basis for proper apportionment of 10% of the psychiatric disability to nonindustrial factors, and 80% of the GERD-related disability to nonindustrial factors, as set forth in the formal rating instructions.

  The court found 10% of psychiatric disability and 80% of GERD-related disability apportioned to nonindustrial factors based on medical reports.

  Official decision · page 26 →
• ADJ4690879 · 2023-08-09 · Van Nuys 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 because the petitioner did not show 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 →
• ADJ4641101 · 2022-07-20 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We received an answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations in the Petition, the answer, and the contents of the Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we will deny removal. Removal 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.,

  Petition for removal denied because petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if adverse final decision issued.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9442121 · 2022-05-20 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2The removal standard requires "significant prejudice" or "irreparable harm." (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 10955, subd. (a).) Given applicant's medical condition, and the fact that he is domiciled outside of California, any undue delays in this case do meet the removal standard. Nevertheless, we will deny applicant's Petition because applicant appears to be incorrect in his contention that admission into evidence of Dr. Einbund's April 8, 2020 report would allow the WCJ to "make a definitive ruling" (Petition at p. 2) or that apportionment is the only issue that requires further evidence. In her Opinion on Decision, the WCJ listed several perceived deficiencies that she believed required further evidence. (See Opinion on Decision at pp. 18-20.) While the applicant acted reasonably in procuring the April 8, 2020 report, since it was unclear whether the discovery had been reopened by the WCJ's January 13, 2020 letter outlining deficiencies in the record, the April 8, 2020 report does not appear to address all of the concerns outlined in the Opinion on Decision.

  Petition denied because the April 8, 2020 supplemental report did not address all deficiencies and further evidence was required.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ1281382 · 2021-05-06 · Santa Barbara 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 removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →

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.

• ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY
• Arrowood Indemnity
• ARROWOOD INDEMNITY

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.