Omaha National Underwriters

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Oakland 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Los Angeles 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Fresno 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Pomona 1
• Redding 1
• Riverside 1
• San Bernardino 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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 10 for the defense
• 4 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 16 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.

Decisions

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

• ADJ21809965 · 2026-08-03 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal or in the alternative reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on April 13, 2026. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel request and panel list number 7893809 dated December 17, 2025 requested by defendant was not defective and was the valid QME panel; that applicant is required to be evaluated by a doctor selected from that list pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.2 1; that the QME panel request and list requested by applicant’s counsel dated December 23, 2025, panel number 7895678, is defective and is not valid; and that applicant is not entitled to be evaluated by doctors selected from that list. Applicant contends that defendant’s panel request was defective as it was requested prematurely pursuant to section 4062.2 because Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 adds 10 days to the time to act where an out of state party is involved. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by calculating the time based only on service, and only adding 5 days for service based on service on in state parties only, and not taking into account that the sending party was out of state. Defendant did not file a response. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation (Report) recommending denial of the petition.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found defendant's QME panel request valid because the denial letter was served on in-state parties, triggering only a 5-day extension under WCAB Rule 10605, not the 10-day extension applicant argued under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Applicant's panel request was defective and invalid.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18902547 · 2026-07-27 · Riverside District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10This WCALJ awarded sanctions in the form of attorney fees pursuant to CCR 10421, CCR 10545, and Labor Code 5813. It was determined that the defendant failed to comply with CCR 9795.4 in which the language states that defendant shall pay within 60 days of receipt of billing or object. Neither was done. The failure to perform a mandatory action appears willful. Petitioner did not show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

  The WCJ awarded sanctions in the form of attorney fees, but the Appeals Board found no irreparable harm or significant prejudice to defendant and upheld the award.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ16505110 · 2026-04-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9§ 9795.3(b)(2) applies in this matter and find that cost petitioner is entitled to the greater of market rate or county superior court rate under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1). In this matter, we find that translating a C&R is most similar to appearing at an appeals board hearing which falls under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1). Interpreter fees shall be billed and paid at the greater of the following (i) at the rate for one-half day or one full day as set forth in the Superior Court fee schedule for interpreters in the county where the service was provided, or (ii) at the

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ18040257 · 2025-12-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The undersigned issued a Findings of Fact and Orders on 9/8/2025 finding that the selection made by Applicant on 6/23/2025 to use CNS as his primary treating physician was valid in that CNS was part of the carrier's MPN at the time of selection.

  The WCJ found and the Appeals Board upheld that the applicant validly selected CNS as his PTP from the carrier's MPN on 6/23/2025, when CNS was still on the MPN. The defendant's removal of CNS from the MPN after that date does not retroactively invalidate the selection or deny treatment.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17425906 · 2025-09-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1LRA Interpreters, Inc., (cost petitioner) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 12, 2025, and amended on June 19, 2025 for a scrivener's error, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: the June 7, 2023 date of service for the interpretation of the compromise and release (C&R) falls under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(2) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9795.3(b)(2))1 and cost petitioner was adequately compensated by defendant; the June 6, 2024 date of service for deposition preparation does not fall under AD Rule 9795.3(7)(b)(1), but under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(2); cost petitioner did not meet its burden in establishing market rate; the existing certification of the interpreter is deemed insufficient; and the billing is deemed satisfied.

  The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review whether interpreter services for deposition preparation and C&R reading were properly compensated, whether the interpreter was qualified, and whether the market rate was established. The final decision is deferred pending further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17686288 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. With respect to the assertion by petitioner that the WCJ's Award "far exceeds" the treatment recommendations of the request for authorization (RFA) from applicant's primary treating physician, Vibhay Prasad, M.D. (Petition, p. 8.), the WCJ's Award provides for "further and ongoing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills." Such Award is supported by the Findings of Fact, numbered paragraph 4, which states, "Applicant requires further and continuing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills," which is in turn justified by the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Significant Panel Decision). Further, in addition to the reasons set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe that petitioner's reliance on the case of Allied Signal Aero. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wiggs) (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1077 [84 Cal.Comp.Cases 367] in support of the assertion that the Appeals Board has no jurisdiction to review the medical necessity and reasonableness of home health care is misplaced. Wiggs does not negate the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v.

  The WCAB panel found that the WCJ had jurisdiction to order continuing treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills despite a timely utilization review denial, relying on the Patterson line of cases and rejecting the defendant's jurisdiction argument based on the timely RFA denial. The panel also found insufficient substantial medical evidence to discontinue treatment, crediting the treating physician Dr. Prasad's recommendations over the utilization review physician Dr. Gart's denial.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14723091 · 2024-07-08 · Fresno District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) of April 22, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that Dr. Klassen's medical reporting constituted substantial evidence. Applicant contends that Dr. Klassen's reporting did not constitute substantial medical evidence.

  The Appeals Board found it unclear whether Dr. Klassen's reports constitute substantial evidence and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17467673 · 2026-08-19 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on May 26, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that discovery is not yet complete. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. Removal 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.

  The Appeals Board found that defendant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, based on the WCJ's analysis and the record review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1218145 · 2026-02-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the general allegation that the WCJ is biased.

  The petition for disqualification was denied because the applicant did not establish the technical requirements for disqualification, but the Appeals Board granted removal of the case to ensure substantial justice and expedite proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20916819 · 2026-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ has a conflict of interest. Thereafter the WCJ recused herself from these proceedings and the matter was reset before another WCJ. As the WCJ has recused herself, no issue exists regarding disqualification and the petition will be dismissed as moot. To conserve court resources, the Appeals Board would respectfully request that parties seek to withdraw moot petitions as a matter of courtesy.

  The WCJ recused herself, rendering the disqualification petition moot.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18352965 · 2025-11-06 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2II. Removal 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. Thus, had the Petition been timely, we would have denied it on the merits for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report.

  Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ20858483 · 2025-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Removal of the order of continuance issued by the WCJ on May 29, 2025, is DISMISSED.

  The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot because the parties agreed to a joint continuance with a discovery plan, rendering the issue no longer live.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• OMAHA NATIONAL UNDERWRITERS
• Omaha National Underwriters
• Omaha National
• OMAHA NATIONAL
• OMAHA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• Omaha National Underwriters, LLC
• Omaha National Insurance Company
• OMAHA NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY
• OMAHA NATIONAL UNDERWRITER
• Omaha National Group, Inc.
• Omaha National Insurance
• OMAHA NATIONAL GROUP

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.