Contra Costa County Schools Insurance Group

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1

Where they appear

• Oakland 4
• Santa Rosa 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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 4 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 5 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.

Decisions

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

• ADJ9898386 · 2024-03-15 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6The salient issues to be determined herein are whether the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board had jurisdiction to determine whether the Brain Injury Program requested by the primary treating physician, Dr. Timothy Lo, in the July 7, 2023 (Exh. 1) Appeal/Request for Authorization (RFA) is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of the herein injury, and if so, whether applicant is in need of the Brain Injury Program.

  The WCJ originally found no jurisdiction because the July 7, 2023 RFA was not based on a material change in fact. Upon reconsideration, the Board found the new information provided by Dr. Lo may document a change in material facts, warranting further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ18094363 · 2026-06-30 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) because the current WCJ adjudicated a dispute between applicant and her former attorneys, and now that she is proceeding in pro per, it would be appropriate to appoint a new WCJ.

  The WCJ's Report and the record did not establish grounds for disqualification such as bias or prejudice, and the petition was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9830518 · 2026-01-28 · Santa Rosa 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

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8791088 · 2025-11-14 · Oakland 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

  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 the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12642822 · 2025-01-06 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. The record reflects that on April 23, 2024, the WCJ issued an order compelling applicant to attend a medical evaluation. Applicant filed the instant Petition for Reconsideration in response. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration.

  The petition was untimely, not from a final order, and became moot after the parties resolved the underlying dispute.

  Official decision · page 3 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP
• Contra Costa County Schools Insurance Group

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 claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.