Clarendon National Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE1
• Apportionment1
• Cumulative trauma1
• Permanent total disability1
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• Anaheim 2
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Redding 1
• Salinas 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.

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

Counted over 6 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.

• ADJ1556152 · 2025-02-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association by its servicing facility Intercare for Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, in liquidation (CIGA) both seek reconsideration of the November 14, 2024 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that in ADJ1556152, in relevant part, applicant is entitled to 90 percent permanent disability after the application of apportionment pursuant to Labor Code1 sections 4663 and 4664.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review whether apportionment was properly applied and deferred final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7454093 · 2022-12-30 · Redding District OfficeCumulative traumadefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The carrier for Kin during this period of injury, September of 2006 through November of 2006, State Compensation Insurance Fund, has accepted liability for injury to the neck, low back, wrists, hands and upper extremities. State Fund and the applicant have already resolved any dispute over temporary disability through stipulations and order dated 10/3/2012. Procedurally, the case has gone through a complicated history of trial and appeal, culminating in the trial of 8/10/21, which proceeded on the sole issue of whether there are one, two or more dates of injury.

  The 9-month break in employment with no medical treatment or disability between two periods of injurious exposure establishes two separate cumulative trauma injuries rather than one continuous injury.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10390527 · 2022-03-22 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ issued the F&O on January 7, 2022, finding in pertinent part that "the statutes of limitations" were tolled until the applicant was advised of the statutory deadlines for filing a claim under Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 729 [39 Cal. Comp. Cases 768]. The opinion further determined that no claim form was ever provided to applicant by his employer. Accordingly, the WCJ determined that none of the three continuous trauma applications were barred by "any statute of limitations." (F&O, Joint Finding of Fact No. 1.)

  The WCJ's original decision did not clearly identify the specific statutes at issue or the date of injury under section 5412, which is necessary to determine if the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify these issues.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ3543979 · 2021-03-18 · Salinas District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Hartnell Packing Inc., by and through its insurer, Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company/Liberty Mutual, seeks reconsideration of the December 28, 2020 Findings, Award and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained five industrial injuries, specific and cumulative, to his bilateral shoulders, back, psyche, heart/cardiovascular, sleep and internal while employed as a dock supervisor on July 5, 1996, December 1, 2001, and cumulatively over the periods ending December 31, 2002, October 14, 2003, and June 9, 2005, resulting in permanent total disability. The WCJ determined that though applicant sustained five separate injuries, he was entitled to a single joint award of permanent total disability in the absence of substantial medical evidence to apportion disability between the dates of injury.

  Defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to apportion disability among multiple industrial injuries, and substantial evidence supports applicant's 100% permanent total disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2199336 · 2021-03-09 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, acting in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings Awards & Orders (F&A) issued by the WCJ on October 20, 2020, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in pertinent part that while employed by defendant as a driver/furniture mover, applicant: (1) sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his lumbar spine and psyche, during the period from October 9, 1999, through September 21, 2004, but did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his upper or lower extremities, and that the injury caused 21% permanent disability (ADJ2199336); (2) sustained injury AOE/COE to his lumbar spine and psyche, on October 8, 1999, but did

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and psyche but not to other body parts claimed by applicant; the WCAB upheld this finding based on substantial evidence from AME Dr. Green and QME Dr. Jacks.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8965291 · 2024-03-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On January 8, 2024, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative Petition for Removal contending, in essence, that the December 13, 2023 Order setting this matter for trial issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) was a violation of due process. We have considered the allegations of the Petitions 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 stated below, we will dismiss the petition to the extent that it seeks reconsideration and we will grant removal on motion of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) pursuant to Labor Code section 5310.

  The December 13, 2023 Order setting the matter for trial is not a final order and thus not subject to reconsideration; removal is granted as an extraordinary remedy under Labor Code section 5310.

  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.

• Clarendon National Insurance Company
• CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
• CLARENDON NATIONAL INS. CO.
• CLARENDON/ENSTAR

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.