Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 20
• Van Nuys 18
• Oxnard 12
• Los Angeles 11
• Anaheim 10
• Long Beach 8
• Pomona 8
• Santa Ana 6
• Fresno 5
• San Francisco 5
• Marina del Rey 4
• Riverside 4

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.

• 64 for the defense
• 47 for the applicant
• 18 returned for more record

Counted over 128 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.

• ADJ12792074 · 2026-04-27 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 23, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained 57% permanent disability, after apportionment, for injuries to his right arm, right wrist, left wrist, left hip, and psyche. The WCJ also found that the "violent act" exception applied under Labor Code section1 4660.1 and that applicant did not rebut the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) with vocational evidence.

  The WCJ found 57% permanent disability after apportionment but did not find that applicant rebutted the PDRS with vocational evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed, particularly regarding vocational and medical evidence, and granted reconsideration for further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9787530 · 2026-03-03 · Oxnard District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6However, as the WCJ's Report observes, following the March 28, 2014 injury date, applicant sought and received treatment from within defendant's MPN including evaluation and diagnosis by Eileen Lee, D.O. (Ex. A, Report of Eileen Lee, D.O., various dates), surgical intervention performed by Clarence Petrie, M.D. (Ex. D, Reports of Clarence Petrie, M.D., various dates), and later, follow-up consultation with Raye Bellinger, M.D. (Ex. E, Reports of Raye Bellinger, M.D., various dates). The evidence thus supports defendant's timely provision of medical treatment in response to applicant's March 28, 2014 injury. Moreover, lien claimant identifies no request for medical treatment submitted by applicant which defendant neglected or refused. (See Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1423 (Appeals Board en banc).)

  The evidence showed that defendant provided timely and necessary medical treatment within its MPN for the admitted injury, and there was no denial of care or evidence supporting the need for self-procured treatment at employer expense.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10405282 · 2026-02-26 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5In Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 30I] (Appeals Board en banc) (Nunes I), we held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, but that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment."

  The Board found that the vocational evidence did not meet the standards for substantial evidence to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating and that further development of the record was necessary to properly adjudicate the issues of permanent disability and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11777176 · 2026-02-11 · Stockton District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the services of lien claimant, Dental Trauma Center, were reasonable and necessary and awarded lien claimant the balance of its lien with penalties and interest.

  The Board found the lien claimant's services reasonable and necessary, rejecting defendant's argument that diagnostic testing required separate utilization review authorization, and affirmed the WCJ's award of the lien balance with penalties and interest.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17085228 · 2026-02-02 · Pomona District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, as explained above, applicant and/or their attorney were not required to attend the lien conference. Hence, one of the bases for the NIT, the alleged failure to appear, was legally incorrect rendering the NIT void. Because the NIT is void, the Order is void, and we will rescind it.

  Applicant's attorney was not required to appear at the lien conference under WCAB rules, so the basis for sanctions was legally incorrect and the order was void.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11938023 · 2026-01-05 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) of September 30, 2025, and the Amended Findings and Order (Amended F&O) of October 10, 2025. In the F&O of September 30, 2025, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant while employed by defendant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right ankle, right foot, bilateral writs, tailbone/coccyx, claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE to her left ankle, bilateral knees, psyche, heart, and stroke/brain; and that applicant is entitled to panels in the fields of cardiovascular disease and psychiatry. Following an October 7, 2025 letter from applicant's attorney requesting the WCJ's decision be corrected to order panels in psychology and cardiovascular, rather than psychiatry and cardiovascular, the WCJ issued the Amended F&O. Therein, the WCJ corrected the Order to specify a panel in psychology rather than psychiatry, but did not amend Findings of Fact number three (3) to reflect the change in specialty from psychiatry to psychology.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to amend the Findings of Fact to specify the correct panels in cardiovascular disease and psychology, affirming the WCJ's decision otherwise.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3869833 · 2025-12-22 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Petitioner contends that the WCALJ erred in finding that van repairs are medical treatment. The undersigned disagrees and finds plenty of support in the case law for the proposition that this is a form of medical treatment that can be awarded under the provisions of the Labor Code.

  The Board found that repairs to a handicapped modified van are medical treatment under Labor Code 4600 and that the evidence supported reimbursement as reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of the injury.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11930717 · 2025-10-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued on February 19, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which denied applicant's request for an additional qualified medical evaluator (QME) in internal medicine.

  Applicant showed good cause for an additional QME panel in internal medicine because the current QME stated the claim of injury (diabetes) is outside their expertise, constituting substantial prejudice and irreparable harm if removal was not granted.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11665067 · 2025-09-29 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The March 25, 2019 report of orthopedic QME Dr. Mikhael diagnosed applicant as having sustained injury to the lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, and right hand and wrist. (Ex. 25, Report of Mark Mikhael, M.D., dated March 25, 2019, at p. 9.) The QME concluded that "[i]t is within [a] reasonable degree of medical probability that the injury sustained by the examinee arose out of the course of employment due to cumulative trauma from the dates of October 24, 2013 to October 24, 2018." (Ibid.) Thus, the QME has identified injury AOE/COE.

  The medical evidence from QME Dr. Mikhael and treating physician Dr. Bazel uniformly supports injury AOE/COE, and defendants offered no rebuttal evidence; the WCJ's requirement for applicant testimony was not supported by law as substantial evidence supports injury AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17821210 · 2025-08-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7An expedited hearing was held before WCJ Hursh on 3/19/2025. The WCJ determined that the medical evidence set forth in the peer review reports failed to demonstrate any significant change in condition. The rehabilitation program was ongoing treatment having been instigated since January, 2024. Hence the WCJ invoked the rule of Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 CCC 910. He invalidated the UR Determination indicating that the Petitioner could not unilaterally discontinue previously authorized ongoing care without a showing of a significant change of condition. He invoked the Appeals Board's jurisdiction to find that the treatment requested was reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the Applicant of the effects of the injury and ordered the Defendant to provide same.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found that defendants failed to show a material change in circumstances to justify a new utilization review for ongoing brain injury rehabilitation care, thus the prior authorization remains valid and the treatment must continue.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16007451 · 2025-08-25 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8MEDICAL-LEGAL CHARGES Petitioner has argued that the reporting of the lien claimant is capable of proving an industrial injury and is a medical-legal report, and referred to CCR 9397(H). It appears that lien claimant is referring to 9793(h). It does not comply with this section as it was not obtained and requested by a party for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim. The request by applicant attorney was for treatment. There was no contested claim until after denial on June 13, 2022, and after that date none of the reports from petitioner (5 & 6) are capable of proving or disproving a disputed fact or proving injury. The reporting by the lien claimant does not comply with California Code of Regulations 9793(h). The exhibits from petitioner did not comply with Labor Code 4628 in that there was not a complete history, prior medical records were not summarized, and according to Labor Code 4628(e), failure to comply with requirements of this section make the report inadmissible.

  The medical-legal reports were not obtained or requested for proving a contested claim and did not comply with regulatory requirements, thus not admissible for medical-legal charges.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10809542 · 2025-04-01 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, since "date of injury" was specifically placed at issue at trial (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of December 17, 2024 trial at p. 2) and the WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that "the date of injury is August 2, 2017...." (Opinion on Decision at p. 8), we will amend the WCJ's decision to include an express finding that the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is August 2, 2017. We will otherwise affirm the WCJ's decision for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, which we adopt, incorporate and quote below.

  The date of injury was found to be August 2, 2017, based on the finding that compensable temporary disability began on that date and the condition became permanent and stationary later, supported by substantial evidence including medical opinions and applicant's testimony.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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 19.

• BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES
• BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY
• Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies
• BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
• Berkshire Hathaway
• Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company
• BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SAN FRANCISCO
• BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES/GUARD INSURANCE COMPANIES
• BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANIES
• BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOME STATE INSURANCE COMPANY
• Berkshire Hathaway Home States Companies
• BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOME STATE COMPANIES

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.