Chubb Group of Insurance 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

• Van Nuys 11
• Los Angeles 5
• Marina del Rey 4
• Santa Ana 3
• Fresno 2
• Oakland 2
• Anaheim 1
• Riverside 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.

• 18 for the defense
• 10 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 29 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.

• ADJ9213906 · 2026-08-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10786(e) and (f).) Here, there is no evidence in the record that defendant objected to cost petitioner’s invoices or issued any EORs. At time of trial, defendant offered no exhibit evidence or witness testimony about its timely compliant objections or EORs in response to cost petitioner’s invoices. Accordingly, under section 4622(a), defendant has waived their objections to cost petitioner’s invoices, and they owe the bills, penalties of 10 percent, and 7 percent per annum interest. Furthermore, the WCJ’s order of payment per fee schedule is incorrect. Specifically, under WCAB Rule 10786(f), the fee schedule applies when defendant has sent EORs. We also note that the order to bill review is also not appropriate given that defendant failed to submit evidence that it issued timely compliant objections or EORs. (Lab.

  Defendant failed to issue timely and compliant objections or Explanations of Review (EORs) to cost petitioner's invoices as required by Labor Code section 4622(a) and WCAB Rule 10786(e), resulting in waiver of objections and entitlement to payment, penalties, and interest for cost petitioner.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12221422 · 2026-07-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Dental Trauma Center (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Orders (F&O) of April 15, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: 1) applicant while employed on March 9, 2019 as a journeyman electrician sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, head, psyche, right knee, bilateral shoulders, left elbow, right knee, and right ankle; and that 2) applicant did not sustain a dental injury. Lien claimant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant did not sustain a dental injury because: 1) the WCJ failed to address substantial medical evidence by failing to analyze, discuss or mention Dr. Schames’ and Dr. Pietruszka’s reporting and, “[i]nstead, the WCJ denied the claim solely because ‘no testimony’ was elicited”; 2) the decision should be based on medical evidence and not lay testimony; 3) if the WCJ thought the evidence was insufficient, then the record should have been developed; and 4) the finding regarding substantial evidence requires medical reasoning of solid value. No party filed an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied.

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence in the reports of Dr. Schames and Dr. Pietruszka supporting the dental injury, contrary to the WCJ's finding based solely on lack of testimony.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16659537 · 2026-03-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Once Great Northern was dismissed, it no longer had standing as an employee, dependent, defendant, or interpreter to file a petition for costs. Consequently, Great Northern's petition for costs was dismissed by operation of law. No subsequent filing cured this defect, and all the petitions for costs filed by Great Northern remain dismissed.

  The Appeals Board held that once the defendant was dismissed, it no longer had standing to file a petition for costs, and the petition was dismissed by operation of law.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ10959526 · 2025-09-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, the WCJ's finding that applicant failed to meet his burden of proof that he sustained injury on May 27, 2017 AOE/COE is not supported by any medical evidence. Although we acknowledge the WCJ's reservations regarding applicant's lack of credibility, the WCJ's determination is not dispositive. There is no medical evidence in the record with respect to whether the applicant sustained an industrial injury on May 27, 2017. Applicant was never evaluated by a medical-legal evaluator nor a treating physician regarding the alleged injury. The only medical

  The WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to prove injury AOE/COE to the foot and toes on May 27, 2017, is not supported by any medical evidence. The record lacks medical-legal or treating physician evaluation on causation. The WCAB has a duty to develop the record when medical evidence is absent or insufficient, so the matter is remanded for further proceedings to obtain a PQME opinion on causation.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ1405392 · 2025-05-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8On March 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated March 15, 2025, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Findings of Fact, Award & Order dated February 25, 2025. The Defendant contends that the undersigned WCJ erred in admitting the neuropsychological consultative reports of Fernando Gonzalez, Ph.D., dated June 1, 2023 and October 16, 2024. In addition, the Defendant contends that Dr. Gonzalez's reporting failed to constitute substantial medical evidence, including, but not limited to, his alleged lack of competence, the substance of his opinions, and his adding versus using the combined values chart Table 13-8 impairment rating in the AMA Guides and global assessment of function score to achieve permanent total disability. Finally, the Defendant contends that Labor Code § 4660.1(c) bars any psychiatric permanent disability for the Applicant's injury.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found that Dr. Gonzalez's consultative medical reports were properly admitted and constituted substantial medical evidence based on adequate examination, history, and reasonable medical probability.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11706407 · 2025-04-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that the record is clear as to whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion applies. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

  The WCAB found that the issues of jurisdiction and res judicata were not clearly resolved in the prior order and that reconsideration was necessary to fully study the factual and legal issues.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13150222 · 2021-10-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 22, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ took the matter off calendar on the basis that expedited hearings are limited to claims with one or more accepted body parts.

  The WCAB panel found that the WCJ's denial of an expedited hearing based on the absence of an admitted body part was invalid under Labor Code section 5502, and that the matter should be returned to the trial level for further proceedings with a complete evidentiary record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18454068 · 2026-08-31 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.25 [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 significant 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 the petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ19890995 · 2026-07-31 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Order Suspending Action on Compromise and Release (OSA) issued on April 21, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant contends that the OSA exceeds the scope of permissible settlement review and that sufficient information has already been provided to determine adequacy. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ has not filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report). We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal. Based on our review of the record and pursuant to the en banc decision in Gaines, et. al., v. ABM Aviation, Inc., et. al. (2026) 91 Cal.Comp.Cases ___; 2026 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 32 (Appeals Board en banc), we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the April 21, 2026 OSA, order that the WCJ in this matter is disqualified, and return this matter to the presiding judge who may reassign it to another trial level judge who may then conduct adequacy review of the proposed settlement and create a record supporting the decision on adequacy. 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

  Removal granted because petitioner showed substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy; WCJ disqualified due to conflict as in Gaines en banc decision; OSA rescinded and case returned for reassignment and adequacy review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19538200 · 2026-06-16 · Los Angeles 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

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if a final adverse decision is issued.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20145466 · 2026-05-29 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on February 19, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14590241 · 2026-01-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that discovery is not yet complete. We have received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. 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. 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., 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

  The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 16.

• CHUBB
• CHUBB INSURANCE
• CHUBB GROUP LOS ANGELES
• CHUBB GROUP
• CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES
• Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
• CHUBB/STARR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
• CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
• Chubb Group of Insurance Company
• CHUBB NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE
• CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE

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.