California WCABClaims administrator
Hazelrigg Risk Management Services
Hazelrigg Risk Management Services is named as a claims administrator in 5 released California WCAB decisions from 2006–2024. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2), AOE/COE (1) and Apportionment (1). Defense most often ran through Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin (1). The employer appearing most often is City of Montebello (2). The office that heard the most of them is Oakland.
- Decisions
- 5
- Years
- 2006–2024
- Issues disputed
- 6
- District offices
- 3
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
- Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin1
- Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen1
- Shaw Jacobsmeyer Crain & Claffey1
5 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
- City of Montebello2
- Oakland Unified School District2
- City of Desert Hot Springs1
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 4 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’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 claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.
- ADJ13057141 · 2024-05-16 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The essence of applicant's argument is that applicant's disability to the psyche in 2008 does not overlap with the current disability to psyche in 2019, and thus defendant failed to prove apportionment. The injury to psyche in both cases was post-traumatic stress disorder. Applicant's disability was rated the exact same way, using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). The diminished future earnings capacity modifier for both cases was 1.4. It is the same body part, same diagnosis, and same rating method in both cases. On these facts the two disabilities clearly overlap. (See, Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (2006), 142 Cal. App. 4th 1099.) The WCJ was correct to apply apportionment under section 4664.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the permanent disability from the 2019 injury overlapped with the prior 2008 injury, and thus apportionment under section 4664 applied, negating compensable permanent disability for the 2019 injury.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ10010348 · 2022-01-06 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdeferred
Determinative passage · p.7*** 8. The issue of applicant's entitlement to future medical treatment for her cervical spine and/or lumbar spine is deferred.
Issue deferred pending development of the record.
Official decision · page 7 → - 2006-sp-3 · 2006-09-25Medical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.118 and internal injury claims must be obtained through the procedures established by Labor Code
The Board held that for injuries on or after January 1, 2005, when the employee is represented by counsel, medical evaluations must be obtained only through the QME/AME procedures specified in sections 4060 and 4062.2, making reports obtained under section 4064(d) inadmissible.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10708805 · 2024-02-02 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1RECONSIDERATION The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on December 6, 2023, has been withdrawn by petitioner1. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ4651980 · 2022-10-10 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Before turning toward discussion of the case, the court notes that the applicant has not shown that the attached documents to the Petition for Reconsideration are new evidence which applicant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at trial as required under Labor Code Section 5903(d). In addition, the Petition for Reconsideration has attached
The WCJ and WCAB found no new evidence or grounds to reconsider; the applicant's delay and lack of credible evidence led to denial.
Official decision · page 5 →
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.
- HAZELRIGG CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES
- HAZELRIGG CLAIMS MGMT. SVCS. INC., A TRISTAR COMPANY
- Hazelrigg Risk Management Services
- Hazelrigg Claims Management
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.
Also on this
Private workspace
Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.
Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.