California WCABInsurance carrier
Palomar Specialty Insurance Company
Palomar Specialty Insurance Company is named as an insurance carrier in 9 released California WCAB decisions from 2024–2026. The disputes are Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (1). Defense most often ran through CW Law (4). The employer appearing most often is Source One Building Maintenance INC. (2). The office that heard the most of them is Riverside.
- Decisions
- 9
- Years
- 2024–2026
- Issues disputed
- 1
- District offices
- 7
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
11 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
- Source One Building Maintenance INC.2
- Blue Sky Landscape Corp.1
- Cabinets 2000, LLC1
- Charles S. Crabtree Painting, INC.1
- Cmax Commercial Maintenance, INC.1
- House of Stainless Steel, INC.1
- Millwork Brothers, INC.1
- Sunwest Masonry and Concrete INC1
Where they appear
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.
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.
- 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 → - 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 → - ADJ20203816 · 2025-10-07 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on June 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
Petition for removal was withdrawn after parties entered into a Compromise and Release, so the petition was dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ18067229 · 2025-07-10 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the additional reasons given below, we will deny reconsideration.
The WCAB panel found that the defendant did not meet the burden of proof to show a change in applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify discontinuing ongoing home health care, and thus denied the petition for reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ18291313 · 2025-02-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal filed on August 21, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.
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.
- PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
- Palomar Specialty Insurance Company
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.
Also on this
Private workspace
Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.
Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.