Employers Preferred Insurance Company

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 23
• San Francisco 8
• Anaheim 7
• Los Angeles 7
• Pomona 7
• Marina del Rey 6
• Santa Ana 4
• Oakland 3
• San Diego 3
• San Jose 3
• Long Beach 2
• Oxnard 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.

• 47 for the defense
• 25 for the applicant
• 13 returned for more record

Counted over 82 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.

• ADJ13021836 · 2026-06-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration by defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period. In Case No. ADJ20509813, the WCJ found that applicant sustained

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to the excretory and reproductive systems during various employment periods, but the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on settlement approval.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14834670 · 2026-05-26 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant State of California, Department of Social Services, In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the applicant (decedent), while employed during the period December 3, 2020, through December 17, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by COVID-19, resulting in death, and that IHSS did not meet their burden of proof to establish that decedent had concurrent employment as at the time of his injury.

  The QME report by Dr. Betsy Kuriakose was found to be well-reasoned, based on an adequate history and evidence, supporting the finding that decedent contracted COVID-19 during employment, resulting in death. The defendant's arguments against causation and alternative sources of infection were rejected due to lack of evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10283590 · 2026-04-24 · Pomona District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, Physical Rehabilitation Services, Inc., seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on January 29, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that lien claimant failed to prove that applicant sustained industrial injury and "awarded" lien claimant nothing on its lien claim.1

  The WCJ erred in ordering lien claimant to take nothing on its lien because the admitted injury to the right knee was not properly brought to the WCJ's attention, and defendant failed to produce a denial letter for the claim, warranting reconsideration and further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16626738 · 2026-03-30 · San Bernardino District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, FMR Interventional Quality Pain Management, APC, seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on December 24, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that lien claimant failed its burden to prove industrial injury and to prove reasonableness and necessity of its treatment and ordered lien claimant to take nothing on its lien.

  The WCJ denied the lien for failure to prove industrial injury and reasonableness/necessity of treatment, but the WCAB found the record required further review and development, and that the Compromise and Release's good-faith dispute was not binding on the lien claimant. The WCAB granted reconsideration and deferred a final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16423182 · 2026-02-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the Order Imposing Sanctions and Costs Against Patrick Petronella and Pacific MRI issued by the WCJ on November 21, 2025 is RESCINDED and this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ consistent with this opinion.

  The WCJ issued sanctions without holding a hearing or creating an adequate record, violating due process requirements; the WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the sanctions order.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ14559862 · 2025-11-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the August 25, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his low back, while employed as a dishwasher on October 27, 2019. The WCJ further found that the normal workers' compensation issues were resolved by a compromise and release on July 20, 2022; that lien claimant FMR Interventional Quality Pain Management, APC provided medical care; that lien claimant Joyce Altman Interpreters provided Spanish interpreting services for the care at FMR; and that the WCJ does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the lien claims herein pending UR procedures. Based on these finding, the WCJ ordered defendant to perform retrospective UR services on the services provided by FMR and Joyce Altman within the time limits set forth in Cal. Code of Regs. § 9792.9.1.

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE based on substantive medical evidence from Dr. Marina Russman, but the WCAB panel found the record not properly developed and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7445107 · 2025-10-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.16Therefore, we hold en banc that: 1. All en banc decisions are binding on panels of the Appeals Board and the WCJs, and the

  The WCAB en banc held that all en banc decisions, including Coldiron I and II, are binding and require disclosure of all entities liable for payment and all insurance policies impacting liability, and that WCAB Rule 10390 does not supersede these requirements.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ12248957 · 2025-10-06 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ opined, in one sentence, that applicant's interactions with his superiors regarding compliance with company dress code "appeared to be a good faith personnel action[.]" (Opinion on Decision, p. 5.) We can assume that, in so stating, the WCJ was

  The WCJ failed to properly apply the good faith personnel action defense and must make specific findings on the Rolda factors upon remand.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ13021836 · 2025-09-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) seeks reconsideration of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period.

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to applicant's excretory and reproductive systems for specific and cumulative trauma periods, supported by credible testimony and medical evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently explained and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19297551 · 2025-08-11 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Lastly, section 4605 provides: Nothing contained in this chapter shall limit the right of the employee to provide, at his or her own expense, a consulting physician or any attending physicians whom he or she desires. Any report prepared by consulting or attending physicians pursuant to this section shall not be the sole basis of an award of compensation. A qualified medical evaluator or authorized treating physician shall address any report procured pursuant to this section and shall indicate whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the findings or opinions stated in the report, and shall identify the bases for this opinion. (Lab. Code, § 4605.) Here, we have concluded that Dr. Tarin's medical report is relevant to the issue and must be provided to Dr. Bressler under section 4062.3(a)(2). We note that the application of section 4605 is more significant in the context of whether reporting by a consulting physician may be the basis for an award. Here the issue is causation, not permanent disability, but we observe that the language of section 4605 also supports a conclusion that the QME should review the reporting. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition, rescind the WCJ's May 9, 2025 F&O, and issue a new decision ordering that Dr. Tarin's report be provided to QME Dr. Bressler.

  The Appeals Board found that Dr. Tarin's pathology report is relevant and must be provided to the QME under Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2), rejecting the WCJ's exclusion based on AD Rule 35(e) and WCAB Rule 10682(b).

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ16382526 · 2025-08-11 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, acting in pro per,1 seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 5, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant worked for more than six (6) months, but there is no industrial injury to the psyche as the applicant failed to carry their burden of proof. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.

  The WCJ found no compensable psychiatric injury because the termination was a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. The applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17864269 · 2025-04-28 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In the instant case, we agree with the WCJ that the medical evidence as well as applicant's uncontradicted testimony at trial supports a finding that the applicant sustained an aggravation and not an exacerbation of his pre-existing condition. The May 18, 2023 incident required treatment beyond first aid, and applicant's unrebutted testimony at trial was that he was unable to return to work after his May 18, 2023, as the employer advised he could not do so unless he could perform his job. Further, the parties stipulated at trial that "the employer has furnished some medical treatment." (MOH/SOE, 1/14/25, 2:15.)

  The evidence and applicant's uncontradicted testimony support that the applicant sustained an aggravation, not an exacerbation, of his pre-existing condition, requiring medical treatment and causing temporary disability, meeting the definition of a compensable specific industrial injury under Labor Code section 3208.1.

  Official decision · page 4 →

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 29.

• EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY
• EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY
• Employers Preferred Insurance Company
• EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY
• Employers Assurance Company
• Employers Compensation Insurance Company
• EMPLOYERS PREFERRED
• EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUP
• Employers Compensation Insurance Group
• EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO.
• EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE SAN FRANCISCO
• EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE

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.