Farmers Insurance

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 7
• Los Angeles 3
• Riverside 3
• Long Beach 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Fresno 1
• Oxnard 1
• Pomona 1
• San Diego 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.

• 10 for the applicant
• 8 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 19 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.

• ADJ8710590 · 2026-05-26 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Cost petitioner met its burden of proof under Labor Code section 4620 to show a contested claim existed at the time it provided its medical-legal services beginning on February 5, 2013, and that the services were reasonable and necessary at the time the costs were incurred pursuant to Labor Code sections 4620 and 4621. 2. Cost petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed for the reasonable value of its services and penalties and interest pursuant to Labor Code section 4622. The issue of the amount of payment is deferred. 3. Defendant did not meet its burden to show that it issued timely and compliant objections or Explanations of Review in response to cost petitioner's invoices. 4. The provisions of Labor Code section 4055.2, including the failure to serve a copy of the subpoena, did not render the subpoenas invalid.

  Cost petitioner met burden to show contested claim existed when services were provided and services were reasonable and necessary; defendant failed to issue timely and compliant objections or Explanations of Review; cost petitioner entitled to reimbursement, penalties, and interest; amount deferred to trial level.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ15017749 · 2025-09-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processmixed

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we will amend the WCJ's order to provide that defendant's liability shall be reduced by any payments it made to cost petitioner after the filing of the Petition to Resolve Non- IBR Medical-Legal Dispute but prior to trial. Although we will reserve jurisdiction to the WCJ in the event of a dispute between the parties as to the proper amount due to cost petitioner, given the representations in the Petition it should be a simple matter for the parties to determine the amount tendered, and to subtract it from the amount awarded by the WCJ. We therefore strongly encourage the parties to resolve the matter among themselves without further need for judicial intervention. We also caution defendant's representative that our leniency on this matter should

  Defendant made payments to cost petitioner after the cost petition and before trial, and cost petitioner's representative was aware; to prevent unjust enrichment, defendant is entitled to credit for those payments.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12294911 · 2025-04-14 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, the record shows that applicant sustained a mental disorder which causes disability or need for treatment which was diagnosed under the proper criteria and was substantially caused by applicant's suspension and termination. (Joint Ex. 1, PQME report of Zara Ashikyan, Ph.D., dated September 16, 2021, pp. 34-39.) The WCJ's finding that applicant did not sustain injury on the grounds that it could not have resulted from actual events of employment is thus without support. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 3-4.) After all, applicant's suspension and termination constitute actual events of employment. Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her psyche.

  The Appeals Board found that applicant sustained a mental disorder causing disability diagnosed under proper criteria and that the injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment including suspension and termination, contrary to the WCJ's prior finding.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ17547374 · 2025-01-24 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on October 23, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that the equitable hourly reimbursement rate for in-home health care (HHC) to the applicant for his spouse's services are $17.53 when the wife is performing regular caregiver duties such as laundry, meal preparation, changing sheets, and assisting applicant in dressing and bathing, and $53.55 when the wife is performing duties equivalent to nursing such as medication dispensing, bandage changing or wound care, assisting with therapy, catheterization, and the bowel program. The WCJ awarded applicant's attorney a reasonable attorney fee of 12% from the retroactive benefits received for the period February 4, 2024, to the date of the Award.

  The WCJ's determination of two different reimbursement rates for spouse's home health care services was reconsidered and the petition for reconsideration was granted to allow further review of the proper rate.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2400606 · 2024-07-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6We conclude that the WCJ must revisit the issue of average weekly earnings and specify which provisions of section 4453(c) she wishes to rely upon to determine the issue, including, as appropriate, case law relevant to the four methods of determining the issue described in subdivision (c). If the WCJ finds it appropriate to consider applicant's earning capacity pursuant to subparagraph (4) of section 4453(c), she should further develop the record as deemed necessary to determine that issue. (Telles Transport, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1164 (66 Cal.Comp.Cases 1290) [Board may not leave undeveloped matters which its acquired specialized knowledge should identify as requiring further evidence].) We also conclude that the WCJ must include room and board in determining applicant's earnings, pursuant to Labor Code section 4454. This is further discussed below.

  The WCJ must revisit and specify the method for determining average weekly earnings, including room and board as remuneration, as the prior finding was not sufficiently developed or specified.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12924233 · 2023-10-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Turning to the issue of joinder, we note that the joinder of parties pursuant to WCAB Rule 103822 is permissive rather than mandatory, as evidenced by the word "may." It serves judicial economy to join all parties "whose presence is necessary for the full adjudication of the case," and such joinder should be accomplished to the extent that it is possible. However, despite the passage of a significant amount of time and effort and several hearings, such joinder has not occurred in these cases. The WCJ did not cite nor did we find any authority for the notion that applicant is the

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found no authority obligating the applicant to secure joinder of necessary parties; the employment issue against the joined insured employer may proceed while joinder of other parties is deferred.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2023-05-05 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10382), which renders the Joinder order void ab initio, i.e., the Joinder Order

  The joinder order was issued in violation of the 10-day waiting period required by WCAB Rule 10382(d), rendering it void ab initio and violating due process rights of the lien claimant. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely and improper, but removal was granted to rescind the joinder order and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

• ADJ2515690 · 2022-03-16 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. Defendant, Farmers Insurance Group/Mid-Century Insurance Company (Farmers) petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 27, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, sustained injuries to his neck, low back, upper extremities, psyche, shoulders, legs, clavicle, and head arising out of and in the course of the employment as an auto body prep man on May 23, 1995, and January 7, 1999, by defendant, Studebaker Services Auto Body, causing permanent total disability and need of further medical treatment. The WCJ awarded benefits against Farmers and defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), both of which insured the employer for workers' compensation liability during certain periods. The WCJ ordered Farmers to administer the award and reserved jurisdiction to enforce Farmers' right to contribution from SCIF for 50% of the benefits paid. Farmers contends in its petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant's injuries caused permanent total disability.

  The WCJ found permanent total disability caused by work injuries; Farmers contested this finding; the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's findings and approved a Compromise and Release settlement instead.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11965696 · 2022-01-24 · Bakersfield District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Nevertheless, liability for cumulative trauma is limited to the last year "immediately preceding" either the section 5412 date of injury "or" the last date of occupational exposure, "whichever occurs first." (Lab. Code, § 5500.5.) In this case, we agree with the WCJ that pursuant to Dr. Baum's substantial opinion, the last year of injurious occupational exposure was the year ending on July 3, 2012.

  The last year of injurious occupational exposure was the year ending July 3, 2012, based on Dr. Baum's substantial medical opinion and the statutory scheme; the section 5412 date of injury is after the last day of exposure, so liability is limited to the year ending July 3, 2012.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13421384 · 2026-05-04 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5had run. Lien claimant alleges no basis in the petition for reconsideration how its petition is timely. According to the Order, lien claimant was served with the Order generated from the December 30, 2025 hearing. As lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely, the Appeals Board is without jurisdiction to act.2

  Petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was not timely filed within the jurisdictional time limits, depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider the arguments.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16301127 · 2024-03-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the dismissal order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 23, 2022. Applicant contends that after asking for the matter to be dismissed, she changed her mind and now wants to pursue the matter.

  The WCAB found the Petition for Reconsideration timely and properly filed before service of the dismissal order, granting continuing jurisdiction and rescinding the dismissal order to allow further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2024-03-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2To be timely, a petition for reconsideration must be filed and received by the Appeals Board within 20 days of the service of the final order, plus an additional five days if service of the decision is by any method other than personal service, including by e-mail or mail, upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) The petition for reconsideration can be filed at any district office of the WCAB. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a).) If the last day to file a petition for reconsideration falls on a weekend or a holiday on which the Workers Compensation Appeals Board is closed, the deadline moves to the next business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)

  The petition for reconsideration was timely filed and the WCJ's order violated lien claimant's due process rights due to lack of reasonable notice and fair hearing, warranting rescission and remand for further proceedings.

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.

• FARMERS INSURANCE
• FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE
• FARMERS OKLAHOMA CITY
• FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP/MID-CENTURY INSURANCE
• FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP/MID CENTURY INSURANCE
• FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
• FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
• Farmers Insurance
• FARMERS

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.