Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Companies

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE1
• Liens1
• QME/AME process1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 2
• Anaheim 1
• Long Beach 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Oakland 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.

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

Counted over 6 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.

• ADJ17527839 · 2024-08-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The Court found defendant's strike of Dr. Arbi Mizaians was timely and therefore defendant is not liable for the cost of reports issued by Dr. Arbi Mizaians. However, the Court also found pursuant to Labor Code 4605 applicant has the right to obtain medical reporting, at his or her own expense, of a consulting physician or any attending physicians whom he or she desires; and therefore, Dr. Arbi Mizaians medical reporting was found to be admissible and may be relied upon to issue a final finding subject to the reporting meeting the substantial medical evidence threshold. Following review of all the evidence the Court found sanctions under Labor Code 5813 are not warranted at this time, and Ordered the matter off calendar. In response Defendant filed the pending Petition for Reconsideration and in the alternative Petition for Removal.

  The WCJ found no sanctionable conduct by applicant's attorney due to lack of clear agreement and no evidence of bad faith in scheduling the QME exam with Dr. Mirzaians.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12800076 · 2021-11-02 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 17, 2021 Finding of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a janitor on May 1, 2019, and December 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019, did not sustain a specific injury or a cumulative trauma injury arising out of or in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) by defendant C&R Restaurant Group dba Taco Bell.

  The WCJ's original decision found no injury arising out of employment, but the WCAB found the record insufficient due to the medical report not being properly admitted, warranting reconsideration and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10496049 · 2021-10-12 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4FINDINGS OF FACT 7. The lien of Dental Trauma Center is Disallowed. 9. The issues of whether the services provided by California Imaging were reasonable and necessary and whether its charges were reasonable are deferred with jurisdiction reserved at the trial level.

  The issue of reasonableness and necessity of CIS services was deferred to the trial level for proper framing and determination consistent with Labor Code and Hamilton requirements.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16246113 · 2025-09-15 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order" (F&O) issued on July 8, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ ordered defendant to serve on cost petitioner its market rate guidelines if a market rate has been established, and to provide the name of the person most knowledgeable as to its market rate guidelines.

  The WCJ's order was interlocutory and not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed. Removal was denied because defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The work-product privilege was not established at trial and was waived on appeal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12612435 · 2021-09-27 · Long Beach 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  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.

• Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Companies
• PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY
• Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company
• PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
• Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association
• Pennsylvania Manufacturers

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.