Safety National 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

• Los Angeles 7
• Oakland 6
• Pomona 4
• Marina del Rey 3
• Santa Ana 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Anaheim 2
• Long Beach 2
• Sacramento 2
• San Bernardino 2
• San Diego 2
• Fresno 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.

• 20 for the applicant
• 18 for the defense
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 40 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.

• ADJ14079246 · 2026-05-26 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6However, the WCJ did not follow Dr. Mandell's conclusions and determined that the WPI for the shoulder should be 5%, with a permanent disability rating of 11% and therefore applicant's permanent disability rating, including both the neck and right shoulder, was 26%. (Opinion on Decision (OOD), pp. 4-6; F&A, pp. 1-2.) The WCJ stated that Dr. Mandell's alternative rating might be viable under other circumstances. (OOD, pp. 4-6.) The WCJ explained that Dr. Mandell's use of grip strength was incorrect for an injury above the elbow and that the correct table for applicant's injury was 16-35 on page 510 of the AMA Guidelines. (OOD, pp. 4-6.)

  The WCJ's 5% WPI rating for the right shoulder was not supported by substantial medical evidence, and Dr. Mandell's 17% WPI rating based on grip strength loss was not adequately clarified or supported. The Appeals Board found a lack of substantial evidence to support either rating and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13614921 · 2026-02-23 · Long Beach District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.18Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not believe that the evidence supports the imposition of sanctions against Petronella, and we grant the Petition for Reconsideration and rescind the F&O and grant the Petition for Disqualification and order that the matter be returned to the Presiding WCJ for assignment to a new WCJ.

  The Appeals Board found insufficient evidence to support the WCJ's imposition of sanctions against lien representative Patrick Petronella and concluded that the WCJ's actions raised doubts about fairness and due process, warranting disqualification and reassignment.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ13384253 · 2026-02-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ states: AOE/COE:... The Court accepts Dr. Yuri Falkinstein's medical reports as substantial medical evidence and accepts his medical finding that applicant sustained an industrially related cumulative trauma injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period May 29, 2019 through May 29, 2020.

  The WCJ accepted medical reports and testimony as substantial evidence that applicant sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury during employment period; defendant failed to disprove injury claim.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ9477887 · 2025-10-29 · Oakland District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5A. There was No Timely Appeal of the Findings and Award of 03-30- 2020 Barring Additional Permanent Disability for Psychiatric Injury under Labor Code section 4660.1

  Applicant's psychiatric permanent disability is barred from add-on disability under Labor Code section 4660.1(c) as the injury was not catastrophic or due to a violent act; prior final finding on this issue is binding and applicant did not appeal it.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ19198086 · 2025-08-25 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. Section 3208.3(d) provides in pertinent part that "no compensation shall be paid pursuant to this division for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(d).)

  The Appeals Board found the applicant's credible testimony that employment began on April 6, 2022, with onboarding activities constituting actual service under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Defendant failed to prove the employment period was insufficient and did not rebut the stipulation that applicant was employed on November 1, 2022.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ17040974 · 2025-02-21 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our December 2, 2024 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration (O&O) wherein we granted reconsideration of an August 8, 2024 Findings, Award, and Orders (FA&O) and rescinded and substituted the FA&O with a new FA&O which found applicant was entitled to temporary total disability for the period from September 1, 2022 through April 26, 2023 and ongoing, subject to the 104 week cap under Labor Code1 section 4656(c)(2).

  The Appeals Board found that the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the period from September 1, 2022 through April 26, 2023 and ongoing, subject to the 104 week cap, rejecting the defendant's argument that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof to show intent to work after retirement. The matter was remanded solely to address reasonable attorney fees related to the award.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17166141 · 2025-01-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Medland Medical seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 7, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant while employed during the period of January 4, 2022 through January 4, 2023, as a caregiver for defendant and claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her neck, back, shoulders, and hernia. The WCJ found that lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proving that its medical treatment and medical-legal services were reasonable or necessary and disallowed its lien.

  The WCJ erred in disallowing the lien for medical-legal services because the lien claimant met its burden to show the services were reasonable and necessary for a contested claim, and the PTP's medical-legal report was valid under Labor Code and regulations. The matter is remanded for further proceedings on the reasonable value of the lien.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17040974 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Applicant, however, was found temporarily totally disabled and continuing by Panel QME, Dr. Kyle Natsuhara, in his December 5, 2023 report. (Exhibit 11, pp. 18-19.) Applicant was also found temporarily totally disabled during the period from June 8, 2023 through May 16, 2024 by primary treating physician, Dr. David Suarez. (Exhibits 1-7.) Further, during applicant's August 19, 2024 trial testimony, applicant testified to a willingness and intent to return to work but for the work injury and noted that at the time of the April 19, 2023 deposition, she was still recovering from surgery and was therefore not thinking about work. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE, August 19, 2024, pp. 5-6; Report, p. 5.) At trial, applicant also testified that any thoughts of a permanent move to Mexico post-retirement "was only a dream." (Report, p. 5.)

  Applicant was found temporarily totally disabled by both the panel QME and primary treating physician, and testified willingness to return to work but for the injury, distinguishing her case from precedent where retirement was stipulated; thus, she met her burden for temporary disability benefits entitlement.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14370367 · 2024-11-18 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Therefore, it was not until February 24, 2021, that applicant obtained the actual knowledge that his complaints were industrially related as Dr. Dorian took note of the applicant's history as a sewing machine operator m1d found that that applicant's complaints were due to his job duties. In addition, there was compensable disability as Dr. Dorian declared the applicant totally temporarily disabled at that time. (App. Ex. 4, Dr. Dorian Report 2.24.21 report, PDF pg. 7, Work Status Section) Therefore, the concurrence of knowledge and disability happened on February 24, 2021.

  The court found the legal date of injury to be February 24, 2021, based on medical opinion, and held the claim was timely filed within one year of that date.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ16130369 · 2024-10-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7We are unable to conduct meaningful review of the Petition or render a decision based on an incomplete record. Accordingly, as our decision after reconsideration, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return the matter to the trial level. When the WCA issues a new decision, any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board found that due process was violated due to an incomplete record and administrative errors, preventing meaningful review and requiring rescission and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ7984952 · 2024-08-08 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9The basic allegation in Applicant's Petition is that Applicant's case involved a complex medical-legal evaluation and that the face to face examination time of 20 to 30 minutes with the AME Dr. Gordon, as testified to by the Applicant, is insufficient under the standard specified in Rule 49.2 for neuromusculoskeletal evaluations, with the result that the resulting report is not substantial medical evidence, cannot be the basis of an award, and that the AME should be replaced. The alleged error is my finding that the time spent with the Applicant by the AME was sufficient under the law and regulations, and that accordingly, Dr. Gordon's report is substantial medical evidence, and was the proper basis for the FA&O, and that it was not necessary to replace the AME.

  The WCJ found that the AME's face-to-face time with the applicant, combined with the history taken by staff, met the regulatory requirements and did not invalidate the AME's report as substantial medical evidence. The WCAB affirmed this finding after reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ15944737 · 2024-06-07 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9While it is clear the applicant is suffering, the link between a workplace incident and any injury has not been credibly established. The medical reports from the date of injury do not have any objective findings, the investigative statements do not corroborate smoke, especially to the point of being unable to navigate ones surroundings.

  Applicant did not meet burden of proof through substantial medical evidence that injury was industrially caused; AME opinion was relied upon and found persuasive; applicant's credibility was questioned; no objective findings corroborated injury.

  Official decision · page 9 →

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
• SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY
• SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE
• SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE
• Safety National Insurance Company
• Safety National Casualty Company
• Safety National Casualty

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.