Old Republic 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

• Van Nuys 18
• Oakland 10
• Santa Ana 10
• San Francisco 8
• Los Angeles 7
• Pomona 7
• Marina del Rey 6
• Bakersfield 4
• Oxnard 4
• Anaheim 2
• Redding 2
• San Bernardino 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.

• 49 for the defense
• 34 for the applicant
• 9 returned for more record

Counted over 86 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.

• ADJ18656111 · 2026-06-26 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on March 3, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that defendant did not prove that decedent's death was proximately caused by intoxication. Defendant asserts that the WCJ erred because the evidence supports the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner ("QME") that intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury.

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that decedent's intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury, due to lack of concrete evidence and reliance on speculative assumptions in the QME report.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17103616 · 2026-05-22 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 10, 2026. Therein the WCJ found that, while employed as a battery tech and roadside assistant on June 13, 2022, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, and left shoulder. The WCJ further found that "[t]he record needs further development, with a neurologist, as to whether Applicant sustained a compensable injury to the head (characterized as headaches) because of the June 13, 2022, incident." Based on these findings, the WCJ issued the following order:

  The WCJ found the chiropractic QME's opinion on headaches was speculative and not substantial medical evidence, justifying ordering a neurological QME panel; the Appeals Board amended the order to remove language broadly disqualifying chiropractic opinions but affirmed the need for a neurological QME.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11351201 · 2026-05-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on February 27, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his eyes, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, fingers, legs, ankles, circulatory and excretory system, and psyche and ordered that applicant take nothing on his claims.

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to resolve conflicting medical opinions on industrial causation, including orthopedic, neurological, and psychiatric claims, requiring further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16306548 · 2026-04-27 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or removal of the Findings and Order with Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued on January 13, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as an electrician by Taft Electric Company, per the filed application dated June 16, 2022, applicant claims to have sustained cumulative injury during the period November 12, 2020 through November 12, 2021, to his neck, back, and bilateral feet; (2) the claim was denied by Gallagher Bassett Services, and no benefits have been paid; (3) the NECA/IBEW Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program on its face is a valid ADR program that has been recognized and repeatedly authorized by the Administrative Director (AD) and holds prima facie jurisdiction over applicant's claim, and applicant has not proven that it fails to meet the requirements of Labor Code section 3201.5(b) or violates his right to a fair hearing.

  The WCAB lacks jurisdiction over the claim because the ADR program holds prima facie jurisdiction and the applicant did not seek review of the ADR closure, thus the WCAB cannot hear the claim except as an appeal from the ADR arbitrator's ruling.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13071035 · 2026-04-24 · San Francisco District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Substantial evidence supports my finding of a delay in medical treatment that gave rise to my assessment of penalties under Labor Code section 5814, attorneys' fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 and sanctions in the form of lien claimant's attorneys' fees. Labor Code section 5814 provides for a penalty for the unreasonable delay of compensation. Medical treatment is considered compensation, and a delay in its provision can give rise to a penalty under Labor Code section 5814. (See, Grubb & Ellis v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 807; Paula Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 820.)

  Defendant repeatedly denied payment for authorized medical care, violating Labor Code section 4610.3 and causing delay in compensation under Labor Code section 5814. The delay was egregious and harmed the applicant's medical care and recovery.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12994950 · 2026-02-12 · Los Angeles District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 11, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to the right knee and left shoulder on November 30, 2011, and that her claim is barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to Labor Code2 section 5405.

  Defendant failed to provide required notices under Rule 9812 and misled applicant, causing delay in filing; thus, defendant is estopped from raising statute of limitations defense.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20798821 · 2026-02-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order Regarding Validity of QME Panel Number 7821226 (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 14, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed by defendant, on February 28, 2025, as a compounding lead, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the head, facial fracture, nasal fracture, collar bone, ribs, and claims injury to the eyes, ears, neck, chest, shoulder, abdomen, back, right arm, right elbow, right wrist, legs, memory loss, and psyche (ADJ20798822); that applicant, while employed by defendant, during the period August 30, 2023 to August 30, 2024, as a compounding lead, claims injury AOE/COE to the neck, back, shoulder, wrists, legs, knees, heels, feet, dry skin, dry eyes, gastrointestinal pain, hearing loss, lungs, and psyche (ADJ20798821); and that Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) Panel 7821226 is valid and overruled applicant's objection to that panel.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18384896 · 2026-01-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.14In this case, we agree with the WCJ that applicant did not meet his burden of proof through substantial medical evidence that he sustained a cumulative injury through August 4, 2023. Dr. Schwartz, the panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME), found applicant had reached maximum medical improvement with regard to the previous July 2016 cumulative injury but that there was no evidence of cumulative trauma through August 4, 2023, as claimed herein. (Dr. Schwartz' 9/19/24 report, at p. 2. Defendant's Exhibit C.) The opinion of primary treating physician (PTP) Dr. Rosenzweig was not based on an adequate history because he failed to review any medical records pertaining to the prior 2016 cumulative injury. This fact alone renders his opinion not substantial medical evidence, making further analysis of his opinion unnecessary.

  Applicant did not meet burden of proof through substantial medical evidence; PQME Dr. Schwartz found no evidence of cumulative trauma through the claimed date; PTP Dr. Rosenzweig's opinion was not substantial due to inadequate history; WCJ credibility determination was given great weight.

  Official decision · page 14 →
• ADJ8534435 · 2025-12-19 · Oakland District OfficeContribution / subrogationdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7For all the reasons above, we therefore conclude that CEC has no right to credit in these contribution proceedings stemming from its Longshore Act settlement. Accordingly, we will affirm the arbitrator's F&A, except that we will amend it to clarify that no credit was previously awarded, as described above. In all other respects, including the award of contribution subject to adjustment by the parties with jurisdiction reserved to the arbitrator in the event the parties cannot determine the proper amount of contribution themselves, the F&A remains intact.

  CEC was not entitled to a credit for its Longshore Act settlement in the California contribution proceedings because it had the opportunity to assert a credit in the federal case and failed to do so; California law does not provide for such a credit in these circumstances, and the purpose of preventing double recovery was not implicated.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12784423 · 2025-09-08 · Anaheim District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.23. Negar Matian (CA BAR# 223868) and Matian Law Group acted in and utilized bad faith tactics in their discovery practices that were frivolous and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

  The Board found that Negar Matian and Matian Law Group acted in bad faith with frivolous discovery tactics causing unnecessary delay, warranting sanctions and costs.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12975722 · 2025-09-05 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the May 15, 2025 Joint Findings and Award (F&A) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained new and further disability to the right hip, hypertension, and diabetes as a result of a cumulative injury during the period from May 13, 2015 through May 13, 2016 (ADJ12975722) which resulted in an increase in permanent disability from 57% to 70%. (F&A, p. 2.) The WCJ also found that applicant sustained a new injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on February 4, 2020 (ADJ10528292) to the right shoulder resulting in a separate 28% permanent disability.

  The WCJ's reliance on Dr. Heskiaoff's medical opinion was upheld as substantial evidence, and the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to apportion increased impairment for hypertension and diabetes to the new injury rather than the cumulative injury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18158502 · 2025-08-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the May 19, 2025 Finding of Fact and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant "while employed during the period March 31, 1973 to November 22, 1992, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her left knee"; that her claim was barred by laches; and that her claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.

  The WCJ found the claim barred by laches and not barred by the statute of limitations; defendant was not aggrieved and did not present evidence to challenge employment or laches; the Appeals Board upheld the WCJ's findings and dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 18.

• OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY
• Old Republic Insurance Company
• OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE
• OLD REPUBLIC
• OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
• Old Republic General Insurance Corporation
• Old Republic Insurance
• OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO.
• Old Republic Contractors Insurance Group
• Old Republic Insurance Corporation/BITCO
• OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO/ GALLAGHER BASSET

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.