California WCABInsurance carrier
SCIF State Employees
SCIF State Employees is named as an insurance carrier in 8 released California WCAB decisions from 2007–2026. The disputes run to Jurisdiction / venue (1), Liens (1) and Permanent disability rating (1). Defense most often ran through Chernow, Pine and Williams (2). The employer appearing most often is CDCR 61 Cci Tehachapi, Legally Uninsured (1). The office that heard the most of them is Santa Ana.
- Decisions
- 8
- Years
- 2007–2026
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 6
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
1 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
- CDCR 61 Cci Tehachapi, Legally Uninsured1
- Cleanco Construction1
- Milholland Electric, INC.1
- Patton State Hospital1
- Performance Pool Construction1
- Redlands Unified School District1
- Top Robin Ventures, INC.1
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 7 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.
- ADJ7763838 · 2025-05-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In the instant matter, defendant Zenith is taking the position that the December 15, 2009 report of Dr. Nelson (Exhibit X1) sufficiently put CIGA on notice of the existence of a cumulative trauma claim so as to establish that same date as the § 5412 date of injury. Zenith argues that CIGA is a sophisticated party, and that therefore, the language in Dr. Nelson's report was sufficient to place it on notice of the potential existence of applicant's cumulative trauma injury.
The court found that the December 15, 2009 report of Dr. Nelson did not provide sufficient knowledge to fix the date of injury for cumulative trauma. The first report that clearly defined the cumulative trauma injury was the November 17, 2010 report, establishing the §5412 date of injury. The application filed on April 27, 2011 was timely under the statute of limitations.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ9352174 · 2024-02-20 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders (F&O) issued on November 30, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in pertinent part that (1) while employed as a supervising cook on June 20, 2012, applicant sustained injury to her right upper extremity, neck, teeth and psyche, with a sequela to her left wrist; (2) applicant requires further medical care to cure or relieve the effects of her industrial injury; (3) applicant sustained permanent disability of 100 percent after adjustments as a result of her industrial injury; (4) the date for commencement of permanent disability benefits was June 19, 2014; and (5) applicant's attorney provided valuable services on applicant's claim.
The WCJ found the applicant sustained 100% permanent disability after combining impairments from right upper extremity CRPS, cervical spine, psychiatric, and dental injuries based on credible testimony and expert medical opinions supporting addition rather than combined values chart (CVC).
Official decision · page 1 → - 2007-sp-2 · 2007-07-09Liensremanded
Determinative passage · p.116 We previously granted the petition for reconsideration of lien claimant, Ambulatory
The lien claimant Ambulatory Surgery Center of Pomona did not have a fictitious-name permit from the Medical Board as required for clinics providing medical treatment, but it was unclear if it was claiming to provide medical treatment as a clinic or only outpatient setting services; the case was remanded for further proceedings to clarify and develop the record.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ8257521 · 2025-12-05 · Bakersfield District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Based on the facts presented here, applicant's coronary artery disease is not a progressive insidious disease. Applicant's disease is not progressively worsening. To the contrary, the AME opines that applicant's disease has stabilized and applicant is permanent and stationary. It is not enough to show that a disease process may worsen at some point in the future. That is true of every disease or condition. Instead, applicant must show to a reasonable degree of medical probability that the disease is actually getting worse.
Applicant's coronary artery disease is not a progressive insidious disease; the AME opined the condition is stable and permanent and stationary, insufficient to reserve jurisdiction under Jackson.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ15765070 · 2023-08-18 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as premature, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ treat applicant's Petition as a petition to set aside and set a hearing. Then, applicant can provide evidence in support of his arguments contained in the Petition and create a record upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ.
The WCAB found the Petition for Reconsideration premature because the matter should be returned to the WCJ for further proceedings treating the petition as a Petition to Set Aside the OACR, allowing applicant to present evidence and create a record.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ12715096 · 2021-08-02 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 21, 2021 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner, so it 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.
- SCIF
- SCIF INSURED BAKERSFIELD
- SCIF INSURED GLENDALE
- SCIF State Employees
- SCIF INSURED POMONA
- SCIF INSURED
- SCIF Insured
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.