Liberty Mutual 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

• Los Angeles 11
• Pomona 11
• Van Nuys 11
• Oakland 10
• San Francisco 9
• Santa Ana 8
• Anaheim 5
• Long Beach 4
• Stockton 4
• Marina del Rey 3
• Fresno 2
• Lodi 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.

• 46 for the defense
• 36 for the applicant
• 13 returned for more record

Counted over 92 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.

• ADJ20384548 · 2026-09-04 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on June 3, 2026 by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed on January 15, 2024 as a seasonal helper by defendant, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his left shoulder, and that the record was devoid of substantial medical evidence as to injury AOE/COE, and that the medical evidentiary record needs to be developed. The WCJ further found that applicant’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant contends that applicant’s failure to appear at either depositions, court hearings, or otherwise participate in his claim does not warrant development of the record, and that the findings of fact should be amended to reflect that applicant has failed to carry his burden of establishing injury AOE/COE. Defendant also asserts that the WCJ should have deferred a finding as to the statute of limitations defense without a finding as to either date of injury or injury. Applicant did not file an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) on July 9, 2026 recommending that defendant’s petition be granted and that the finding regarding statute of limitations be amended.

  The WCJ found the medical record needed development to determine injury AOE/COE, but the WCAB rescinded the findings and remanded for further proceedings due to lack of proper notice and representation issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9507100 · 2026-07-20 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6If the medical evidence establishes that the sole industrial cause of the COPD is asbestos exposure, then the injury would appear to be a compensable consequence of applicant’s settled claim, and thus, likely precluded. If the medical evidence establishes that applicant’s COPD is a separate injury caused, even in part, through other industrial exposures, then it does not fall within the prior C&R as that C&R was limited solely to the case number listed on the document. As no such medical evidence was produced at trial, there is not sufficient information to determine whether the prior C&R covers applicant’s claimed injury herein. Accordingly, we grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration and as our Decision After Reconsideration we rescind the April 14, 2026 F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued on April 14, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge is GRANTED.

  The WCAB found that the prior Compromise and Release (C&R) did not clearly cover the COPD injury, and no medical evidence was produced to establish whether the COPD was a compensable consequence of the settled claim or a separate injury. Therefore, res judicata did not bar the claim and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14680333 · 2026-05-29 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Based on the record before us, we discern no reason to disturb our prior Decision and will therefore deny defendant's Petition.

  The Board found that the medical opinions on apportionment lacked substantial evidence because they failed to provide adequate medical reasoning connecting the impairment to other factors, thus denying defendant's petition for reconsideration on apportionment.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ16435725 · 2026-03-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Finding and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 22, 2025, wherein the WCJ found that applicant's April 4, 2022 injury "did not constitute or result from a violent act and was not a catastrophic injury pursuant to Labor Code section 4660.1 and 3208.31 which would entitle applicant to increased permanent disability for the psyche aspect or erectile dysfunction, as set forth in the attached Opinion on Decision."

  The WCJ's conclusion that the injury was not a violent act or catastrophic injury was found to be inadequately supported, with concerns about disregarding some medical evidence and insufficient findings on the psychiatric injury causation and catastrophic injury factors. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8471459 · 2026-03-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1The following Decision After Remittitur is issued pursuant to the Order issued on February 20, 2026 by the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 8 (Second District), in which the Court found good cause to grant the request of the Appeals Board to annul the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued on December 10, 2024 (Decision), and remand the matter to the Appeals Board for further proceedings. This is our decision after remittitur and remand.

  The record lacked substantial evidence to support the denial of industrial causation due to missing contemporaneous witness statements not provided to medical evaluators, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14680333 · 2026-03-16 · Pomona District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Here treating physician Jahng's apportionment is clearly conclusory and does not set forth the reasoning in support of its conclusions. Moreover, even the doctor seems to doubt his own conclusions as evidenced by the question marks at the end of his findings: "30% related to the industrial injury and 70% to non-industrial factors, including pre-existing degenerative changes and normal wear and tear.???" (Exhibit 1, Kenneth Jahng, M.D., October 23, 2023, p. 5.) Dr. Jahng's statements in his supplemental report that "[i]t appeared that his February 19, 2021 injury was an aggravating injury of a pre-existing condition thus 30% industrial apportionment was given" do not rehabilitate the conclusory nature of his opinions. (Exhibit A, Kenneth Jahng, M.D., November 25, 2024, p. 5.) It is clear Dr. Jahng's opinions are not substantial evidence of apportionment.

  The medical opinions on apportionment were conclusory and lacked substantial evidence, so apportionment was not found and the permanent disability award was amended to 59% without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ11426237 · 2026-03-05 · Lodi District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.84:1), the evidentiary record does not establish medical limitations or other facts or circumstances that would preclude a reevaluation with the current QME. Moreover, applicant's testimony appears to support his ability, "depending on how far he has to go," to engage in air travel and navigate "getting to the airport and through security." (Id. at p. 4:11.) Thus, based on the evidence before us, we cannot conclude that the current record warrants the issuance of a replacement panel of QMEs in neurology. We will grant defendant's Petition and amend the Findings of Fact, accordingly.

  The evidentiary record does not establish medical limitations precluding travel to the QME's new office location, so replacement panel is not warranted.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10388154 · 2026-02-19 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11Here, the WCJ determined applicant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, ascribing a section 5412 date of injury of September 28, 2014, based upon an assumption that applicant gleaned the requisite disability and knowledge of his continuous trauma injury based upon the service of the AME Dr. Uppal's medical report of September 4, 2014 to his attorney, however, an applicant's knowledge cannot necessarily be presumed based solely upon written

  The WCJ's finding of a September 28, 2014 date of injury under section 5412 was rejected because applicant lacked knowledge of the injury on that date; medical treatment was last provided on June 29, 2015, tolling the statute of limitations; thus, the claim was not barred and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ19266826 · 2026-01-09 · Long Beach District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.74061 and section 4062. (Joint Exh. 2 - PTP Objection Letter dated 3/12/25.) As discussed below,

  The WCAB found that applicant's objection letter met the requirements of Labor Code section 4061, entitling her to a QME panel under section 4062.2, and that the WCJ's invalidation of the QME panel was incorrect and caused significant prejudice to applicant.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ18961005 · 2025-09-23 · San Bernadino District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8However, the record does not reflect whether the WCJ initially determined that applicant met her burden of establishing the employment presumption, and, if so, whether defendant rebutted the employment presumption under either the Business and Professions Code section 7451 (Proposition 22) test or the section 2775 ABC test.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ may have misapplied the burden of proof and the substantive provisions of Business and Professions Code section 7451, requiring further review.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ8454650 · 2025-01-24 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7(Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 621, emphasis added.) Here, Dr. Mahawar's medical reporting is not substantial medical evidence on the issue of

  The medical opinion on apportionment was found speculative and not substantial evidence; defendant did not meet burden to prove apportionment; therefore, apportionment was invalid and rejected.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ18204962 · 2024-11-18 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, applicant submitted Stipulations with Request for Award, which was not signed by defendant. Given the lack of signature by defendant, there is no evidence of an agreement, much less a meeting of the minds. As there was no meeting of the minds, e.g., no stipulations, there was no contract, and no basis for the issuance of the Award, rendering the Award void ab initio.

  The Award was based on Stipulations not signed by defendant, indicating no mutual consent or meeting of the minds, thus no valid contract or basis for the Award, violating defendant's due process rights.

  Official decision · page 5 →

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.

• LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• LIBERTY MUTUAL
• Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
• LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
• Liberty Mutual Insurance
• Liberty Mutual
• Liberty Mutual Insurance Group
• LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

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.