Safety National Casualty Corp.

What they litigate

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

• QME/AME process2
• AOE/COE1
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141

Where they appear

• Redding 2
• Riverside 2
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• San Diego 1
• San Jose 1
• Santa Barbara 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 applicant
• 2 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

• ADJ19203396 · 2026-05-29 · San Jose District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal (the Court) issued an order on October 1, 2025 denying a petition for writ of review filed by counsel for defendants, Llarena, Murdock, Lopez & Aziza, APC, in this matter, and remanded the matter to the Appeals Board for the purpose of making a supplemental award to respondent the applicant for reasonable attorney's fees for services rendered in connection with this petition. (Lab. Code, § 5801.)" (Order, October 1, 2025, emphasis added.) The Court's order was based on its finding "that there was no reasonable basis for the petition (See Lab. Code, § 5950; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1074.)" (Ibid.)

  The Court found no reasonable basis for defendants' petition for writ of review and remanded for supplemental attorney's fees to applicant and her counsel, which the Board awarded as stipulated by the parties.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18397268 · 2025-01-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, defendant agreed to Dr. Rubanenko as the PQME, and Dr Rubanenko already issued his PQME Report based on this agreement. (App. Ex. A, pp. 1-4; App. Ex. 3, p. 1.) Therefore, defendant cannot choose a different PQME at such a late stage of the QME process.

  Defendant agreed to use Dr. Rubanenko as PQME and did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal; reconsideration is adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16161110 · 2024-11-14 · Redding District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) "Order Granting Petition for Credit due to Overpayment of Temporary Disability Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code § 4909" (Order) issued on April 23, 2024, wherein the WCJ summarily granted defendant's petition for credit.

  The WCJ summarily granted credit without an evidentiary hearing despite applicant's objection, violating due process; the Board rescinded the order and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13490319 · 2024-03-06 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In Navarro v. City of Montebello (2014) 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 418 (Appeals Board en banc), the Appeals Board held en banc that the "Labor Code does not require an employee to return to the same panel QME for an evaluation of a subsequent claim of injury." (Navarro, supra, 79 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 420.)

  The Appeals Board en banc in Navarro held that an employee is entitled to a new QME evaluation for a subsequent claim of injury filed on a new claim form, regardless of whether the injury involves the same body parts or employer, and the Labor Code provisions support this interpretation.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12017211 · 2022-01-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.9Here, having reviewed the trial record, including Dr. Kattar's report, it appears that the record does not contain substantial medical evidence upon which a finding on the issue of injury AOE/COE can be made. Dr. Kattar requested additional records and the results of diagnostic testing and thus his opinions currently lack a solid underlying basis. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brooks) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 785, 797 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 379]; Escobedo, supra; Hegglin, supra.) Furthermore, he does not offer an opinion regarding the

  The record does not contain substantial medical evidence to support a finding on AOE/COE; Dr. Kattar's opinion was not based on sufficient records or diagnostic testing and did not address all relevant causation factors.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ13490319 · 2021-10-11 · Riverside District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5The parties in this matter dispute whether applicant was entitled to obtain a second QME panel for her 2020 claim form for the specific injury per the Appeals Board's en banc decision, Navarro. In Navarro, the Appeals Board held that the "Labor Code does not require an employee to return to the same panel QME for an evaluation of a subsequent claim of injury." (Navarro, supra, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 420.) Accordingly, the decision "conclude[d] that an employee may be evaluated by a new evaluator for each injury or injuries reported on a claim form after an evaluation has taken place." (Id. at p. 425.) The "date the claim form is filed with employer is the operative act" and thus, this date "determines which evaluator must consider which injury claim(s)." (Id. at p. 424.)

  The Appeals Board found that under Navarro and Labor Code section 4062.3, the applicant was entitled to request a new QME panel for the 2020 claim form filed after the 2018 evaluation. However, there was insufficient evidence in the record to determine if the applicant improperly obtained the second QME panel, so the matter was remanded for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16161110 · 2024-07-01 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On May 20, 2024, applicant's attorney filed a "Petition for Reconsideration of Order and Removal from WCJ and Proposed Supplement to Pending Petition for Disqualification and Removal" (Petition). Applicant seeks reconsideration of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) "Order Granting Petition for Credit due to Overpayment of Temporary Disability Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code § 4909" issued on April 23, 2024, wherein the WCJ summarily granted defendant's petition for credit.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's April 23, 2024 order was issued without an adequate record, violating due process rights, and thus granted reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12956670 · 2023-06-21 · San Diego 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 Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10121279 · 2022-09-06 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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, the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.

  The petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ decision was served, making it untimely and jurisdictionally barred.

  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.

• Safety National Casualty Corp.
• SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP.
• Safety National Casualty, Corp.

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.