Mitsui Sumitomo Cleveland

What they litigate

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

• Psyche AOE/COE1
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• SJDB voucher1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 3
• Long Beach 1
• Oakland 1
• San Luis Obispo 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 5 for the defense
• 2 for the applicant

Counted over 7 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.

• ADJ8068969 · 2023-08-29 · Santa Ana District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America (Petitioner) seeks reconsideration of the June 14, 2023 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a server from June 19, 2002 to May 1, 2011, sustained industrial injury to cervical and lumbar spine, psyche, right shoulder, bilateral wrists, left shoulder, mid back, headache and "multiple." The WCJ found that applicant sustained but one cumulative injury, and that the date of injury pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5412 was 2011. Accordingly, the WCJ determined that section 5405 did not bar compensation, and that the period of liability under section 5500.5 commenced in 2010.

  The WCJ and the Board found that the applicant did not sustain compensable disability or acquire requisite knowledge of work-related cumulative injury until 2011, despite earlier medical treatment in 2008. The application was timely filed within one year of the 2011 date of injury, so compensation is not barred.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ6818414 · 2021-09-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (Mitsui) seeks reconsideration of the July 12, 2021 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution because applicant's Labor Code section 5412 date of injury was after his last date of employment and Mitsui insured applicant's employer during the last year of industrial exposure.1 The arbitrator found that "applicant's date of cumulative trauma, as defined by the provisions of Labor Code § 5500.5 and § 5412, to be June 16, 2007 through June 16, 2008." The arbitrator denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution.

  The Board found that the applicant's date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 was June 2, 2009, after the last date of injurious exposure, and denied Mitsui's Petition for Contribution because Mitsui insured the employer during the last year of injurious exposure.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10286214 · 2021-03-09 · Long Beach District OfficeSJDB voucherapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the July 31, 2020 Findings and Award, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a gaming table associate from September 4, 2014 to September 4, 2015, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and that the Compromise and Release by the parties did not abrogate applicant's right to a supplemental job displacement benefits voucher (SJDB).

  The WCAB found that the applicant did sustain an injury causing permanent partial disability and is entitled to a SJDB voucher. The compromise and release did not settle the SJDB voucher issue, and the applicant's voluntary resignation does not affect entitlement. The statutory prohibition on settlement of the SJDB voucher was upheld.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16042609 · 2025-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the "Order Rejecting Applications for Adjudication of Claim" issued on July 26, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ rejected multiple applications for adjudication because applicant has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a pre-filing order, and that applicant failed to seek permission to file the new applications pursuant to the pre-filing order.

  The petitioner failed to comply with the vexatious litigant pre-filing order and did not obtain permission to file new applications, so removal was denied because substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was not shown and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11506199 · 2025-06-24 · San Luis Obispo 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 applicant's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13280143 · 2024-04-23 · Oakland 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 WCJ correctly concluded that jurisdiction over the contribution dispute rests with the arbitrator, and the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8919280 · 2021-07-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on April 27, 2021 is DENIED.

  The petition was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• MITSUI SUMITOMO
• MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
• MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE COMPANY
• MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT
• Mitsui Sumitomo Cleveland

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.