ICW Group

What they litigate

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

• Statute of limitations2
• Apportionment1
• Liens1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Permanent disability rating1

Where they appear

• Fresno 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Riverside 1
• San Bernardino 1
• San Jose 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Van Nuys 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 defense
• 3 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 8 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work.

Decisions

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

• ADJ10518881 · 2025-03-17 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant raises issues as to the WCJ's findings of fact as to the PD rating and the exclusion of any psychiatric component pursuant to Labor Code2 section 4660.1, subdivision (c)(1) (section 4660.1(c)(1)), and thus, the award of PD. However, neither the WCJ's Opinion on Decision nor Report3 is sufficient to make the right of reconsideration meaningful on these issues.

  The WCJ's original findings on PD rating and psychiatric component exclusion lacked sufficient evidentiary and legal basis, including reliance on inadmissible DEU consultative rating and failure to properly assess catastrophic injury criteria, necessitating deferral of these issues for further consideration.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12153570 · 2023-06-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7The date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is the date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment. [Cal Lab Code § 5412]

  The applicant had compensable temporary disability and knew the disability was caused by employment on May 30, 2017, supported by medical opinion of Dr. John Dorsey.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10656698 · 2022-10-07 · Bakersfield District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Since this was after the May 30, 2015 deadline, the Order found the claims barred. The Petition has not shown the Order was in error.

  The employer furnished some medical treatment but denied the claims on May 30, 2014. The one-year statute of limitations under Labor Code §5405 began on the date of denial. Applications were filed after the deadline, so the claims are barred.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13521927 · 2021-05-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seek reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 16, 2021. By the Findings, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain her burden of proving a denial of care within the employer's medical provider network (MPN) that would entitle her to treat outside the MPN at the employer's expense. The WCJ further found that the employer may satisfy its responsibility for providing treatment through its MPN.

  Applicant did not meet her burden to prove neglect or refusal by defendant to provide timely treatment within the MPN; defendant timely acknowledged claim and scheduled treatment appointment within a reasonable time frame.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15927101 · 2022-09-26 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 21, 2022. In the alternative, defendant requests that the Petition be treated as a Petition to Set Aside the Compromise and Release (C&R).

  The WCAB found the Petition premature because the defendant had not yet had a hearing to present evidence to support setting aside the C&R, so the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14497156 · 2022-01-14 · Fresno 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7785974 · 2021-02-12 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Removal, applicant's answer and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Defendant requested approval to file a supplemental pleading and applicant filed an objection to defendant's supplemental pleading. We accept both supplemental pleadings per WCAB Rule 10964. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10848, now § 10964 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant the Petition as one seeking reconsideration solely to amend the Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision (F&O) to provide the parties with an opportunity to agree to an agreed medical evaluator (AME) in lieu of proceeding with an evaluation with the appointed physician. We will otherwise affirm the F&O.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the F&O to allow the parties to agree to an AME instead of proceeding with the appointed physician's evaluation, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

  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.

• ICW Group
• ICW GROUP
• ICW GROUP INSURANCE COMPANIES - SAN DIEGO
• ICW Group/ Explorer Insurance
• ICW PLEASANTON

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.