California Insurance Guarantee Association

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 19
• Anaheim 12
• Los Angeles 11
• Marina del Rey 7
• Van Nuys 7
• Long Beach 5
• Oxnard 5
• Oakland 4
• Pomona 3
• Fresno 2
• Riverside 2
• Stockton 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.

• 43 for the defense
• 37 for the applicant
• 15 returned for more record

Counted over 89 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.

• ADJ8015380 · 2026-06-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.18For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the July 2, 2019 Findings and Order is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board deferred the rollback issue pending resolution of the section 3600.5(b) application at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ13355568 · 2026-05-08 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ failed to determine the date of injury in accordance with section 5412 and failed to determine when CIGA last paid benefits under section 5405(c) for its administrated claim. Accordingly, upon return, the WCJ must determine not only when CIGA had knowledge of its right to file an Application, but must also determine when applicant first suffered temporary or permanent disability from the cumulative injury in order to raise a cognizable claim for CIGA's reimbursement of benefits. In addition, the WCJ must determine when CIGA last paid benefits on companion case number ADJ2881803, to determine the applicability of section 5405(c) in the

  The WCJ failed to determine the date of injury under section 5412 and when CIGA last paid benefits under section 5405(c), thus the claim's timeliness could not be properly assessed.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ4661348 · 2026-02-20 · Marina del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7While we understand that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, the issue here is not lien claimant's lien, which was either dismissed by operation of law or adjudicated by WCJ Walker's January 16, 2020 Findings of Fact. The issues here are sanctions and costs, which were bifurcated, with jurisdiction reserved, on November 26, 2023. (MOHSOE dated November 23, 2023, Stipulation no. 24, p. 4:6-7.) As we said before, although ordinarily, a dismissal of a lien ends all proceedings with lien claimant, given the unique and extensive procedural history of litigation for almost two decades, as well as lien claimant's actions in repeatedly submitting himself to workers' compensation proceedings, we remain steadfast in our conclusion that the WCAB maintains jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues of penalties, sanctions, and costs after lien claimant began proceedings on May 23, 2023 even though the issue of his lien and the issue of

  The WCAB maintains jurisdiction over the issues of penalties, sanctions, and costs after the lien claimant began proceedings on May 23, 2023, despite the lien being dismissed or adjudicated previously, due to the unique procedural history and continuous litigation.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10388154 · 2026-02-19 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11Here, the WCJ determined applicant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, ascribing a section 5412 date of injury of September 28, 2014, based upon an assumption that applicant gleaned the requisite disability and knowledge of his continuous trauma injury based upon the service of the AME Dr. Uppal's medical report of September 4, 2014 to his attorney, however, an applicant's knowledge cannot necessarily be presumed based solely upon written

  The WCJ's finding of a September 28, 2014 date of injury under section 5412 was rejected because applicant lacked knowledge of the injury on that date; medical treatment was last provided on June 29, 2015, tolling the statute of limitations; thus, the claim was not barred and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ7656948 · 2026-01-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant First Choice Doctors Medical Group, Inc., seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on June 23, 2021 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the F&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found that lien claimant First Choice Doctors Medical Group, Inc., doing business as (dba) Surgery Center of the Canyon, failed to file a lien activation fee as required by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The lien was therefore ordered dismissed with prejudice.

  The WCJ dismissed the lien for failure to pay the lien activation fee, but the Appeals Board found the dismissal was made without a proper evidentiary record and due process, and thus rescinded the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1022470 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the decisions in ADJ3880940 and ADJ4230890, and substitute new decisions that find that CIGA and Desert have joint and several liability and order that Desert is to administer applicant's further medical treatment, and defer the issue of new and further disability in ADJ4230890. We make no other changes to any of the other decisions.

  The Board deferred the issue of new and further disability because the record was inadequate to determine whether the applicant sustained new and further disability and whether a petition to reopen was filed, and CIGA waived the issue by not raising it earlier.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ3301539 · 2025-12-12 · Long Beach District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the Stipulations clearly state in Paragraph 4 that: "There is need for medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of said injury pursuant to the AME reports of Richard Siebold, M.D." This is a statement that applicant will require medical treatment based on the current opinion of Dr. Siebold; the stipulation does not state that all future medical treatment issues shall be decided by Dr. Siebold. In addition in Paragraph 8, stipulation 2 states that: "The parties stipulate to the findings of the AME Richard Siebold, MD." This appears to be more likely to be an agreement as to Dr. Siebold's opinion as to applicant's permanent disability, and not a statement that disputes regarding medical treatment would be submitted to Dr. Siebold in the future. Thus, based on the plain language of the Stipulations, we do not find that the parties meant to submit their disputes regarding medical treatment to Dr. Siebold.

  The plain language of the 2003 Stipulations did not show mutual agreement to submit future medical treatment disputes to Dr. Siebold, and there was no evidence to bypass the statutory utilization review and independent medical review processes.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ7835304 · 2025-10-17 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The issue presented on reconsideration is whether applicant may be paid compensation for a psychiatric injury in this matter pursuant to section 3208.3(d), which provides in relevant part:

  The Board corrected the WCJ's erroneous finding that applicant did not sustain a psychiatric injury AOE/COE but affirmed that applicant was not employed for at least six months and the injury was not caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition, thus no compensation under section 3208.3(d).

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9823240 · 2025-08-18 · Oakland District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7(3) If the earnings are at an irregular rate, such as piecework, or on a commission basis, or are specified to be by week, month, or other period, then the average weekly earnings mentioned in subdivision (a) shall be taken as the actual weekly earnings averaged for this period of time, not exceeding one year, as may conveniently be taken to determine an average weekly rate of pay. (4) Where the employment is for less than 30 hours per week, or where for any reason the foregoing methods of arriving at the average weekly earnings cannot reasonably and fairly be applied, the average weekly earnings shall be taken at 100 percent of the sum which reasonably represents the average weekly earning capacity of the injured employee at the time of his or her injury, due consideration being given to his or her actual earnings from all sources and employments. Defendant's proffered Defendant's Exhibit B, Social Security Earnings Records, but provided no corresponding testimony or evidence to show how much of the prior year applicant had actually worked.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ8923383 · 2025-05-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeCumulative traumadeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant X-Ray Productions petitions for reconsideration of the March 5, 2024 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed during the period of November 22, 1998 through January 1, 2000 did not sustain industrial injury as a result of cumulative trauma. Petitioner contends that the WCJ erred in failing to find a cumulative trauma. Petitioner argues that the evidence presented pursuant to Labor Code sections 5500.5 and 5412 establish a cumulative trauma with an end date of either December 5, 1998 or November 22, 1998. Petitioner also argues that the WCJ denied defendant due process by denying defendant the right to examine witnesses at trial and conduct discovery. Finally, petitioner contends that there is new evidence which should be considered by the WCJ.

  The Board did not rule on the merits but rescinded the prior Findings and Order and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings after the parties settled by Compromise and Release.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3776569 · 2025-05-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center (DTC) timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Joint Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 20, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

  The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the lien issues and approved the stipulation resolving the lien, rescinding the prior WCJ order.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3776569 · 2025-05-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center (DTC) timely petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Joint Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 20, 2024. We granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues in this matter.

  The Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues and approved the stipulation resolving the lien.

  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.

• CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION
• California Insurance Guarantee Association
• CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE
• CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For TOWER SELECT INSURANCE NEW YORK/CASTLEPOINT
• CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE
• California Insurance Guarantee Association by Intercare Insurance Services
• CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY
• CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY
• CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY
• CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by INTERCARE

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.