Great American Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Anaheim 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Pomona 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.

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

Counted over 8 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 →
• 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 →
• ADJ14930871 · 2025-05-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7We are unable to conduct meaningful review of the Petition or render a decision based on an incomplete record. Thus, we cannot consider the merits of the decision. Accordingly, we grant the Petition for Reconsideration, and as our decision after reconsideration, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return the matter to the trial level. When the WCA issues a new decision, any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking a proper transcript, making meaningful review impossible, so it rescinded the prior Findings and Order and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ13762384 · 2022-08-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5No. It is clear from the evidence presented that applicant was performing his usual and customary work duties on the employer's premises at the time he sustained injury on 9/16/20.

  Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof that applicant's injury was caused by intoxication; no evidence that applicant was impaired at work or that intoxication caused the injury.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• 2001-eb6 · 2001-04-30Medical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.26 Based on our review of the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude that where there

  The Board concluded that where there is an existing award of medical treatment, the injured worker is entitled to reasonable changes of treating physicians without following sections 4061 and 4062 procedures, and the treatment by the new physician was reasonable and necessary.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10934327 · 2025-12-04 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on September 9, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not present good cause to take the deposition of the claims adjuster and granted defendant's petition to quash the deposition subpoena.1

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's order quashing the deposition subpoena violated applicant's due process rights, causing irreparable harm and substantial prejudice, thus justifying removal. The Board rescinded the prior order and denied the petition to quash the deposition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14930871 · 2025-11-03 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7parties with the arbitrator, if any. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c)(4).) Additionally, the record does not include the arbitrator's summary of evidence containing evidentiary rulings, a description of exhibits admitted into evidence. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914(c)(7).) Further, petitioner has asserted that the exhibits, as identified by the WCA, are not the correct designation as they proposed, and that the failure of the WCA to create a record with the parties has deprived them of due process.

  The Appeals Board found that the record was incomplete and that due process was not afforded because the exhibits were not properly designated and the record lacked minutes and summary of evidence, thus granting reconsideration and ordering a complete record to be filed.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15072799 · 2024-12-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, we are unable to conduct meaningful review of the petition or render a decision until we have received a complete record. Thus, this is not a final decision on the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration, and once a final decision is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to sections 5950 et seq.

  The Appeals Board could not conduct meaningful review or render a decision on the merits because the arbitration record lacked required documents, including the arbitrator's report and other items per WCAB Rule 10914(c).

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14514349 · 2024-03-18 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  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.

• GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
• Great American Insurance Company
• GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY
• Great American Risk Management
• GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
• Great American Insurance
• GREAT AMERICAN

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.