Star 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
• Bakersfield 6
• Fresno 6
• Oxnard 4
• Anaheim 2
• Oakland 2
• Redding 2
• Salinas 2
• Stockton 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Lodi 1
• Pomona 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.

• 19 for the defense
• 8 for the applicant
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 32 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.

• ADJ14019875 · 2026-01-12 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5... Here, there are numerous issues with Dr. Williams' reporting. First, it appears he only reviewed medical reports at the time he performed his initial evaluation in May of 2020, and in fact, some of those reports were viewed on applicant's phone. (Exhibit 15 at p. 4.) Further, the few records he reviewed only addressed the thoracic spine, and the most recent report was dated December of 2018. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) Aside from some x-rays, it is unclear whether applicant received any medical treatment to his knee or lumbar spine.

  The WCJ's findings that Dr. Williams' reports were not substantial evidence and ordering the parties to agree on an AME were preliminarily found to lack sufficient support, leading to granting reconsideration and deferring final decision for further review.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12069406 · 2025-12-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.11Accordingly, we rescind the October 3, 2022 F&O and substitute a new F&O that defers the issues of whether applicant sustained a high velocity eye injury and whether he is entitled to additional temporary disability pursuant to section 4656(c)(3)(F). We return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The Board found the record lacked sufficient medical evidence to establish to a reasonable medical probability that the injury was a high velocity eye injury, and deferred the issue for further development at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ15031118 · 2025-05-16 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in case number ADJ15031118.

  The WCJ excluded medical evidence from Dr. Shaw and Dr. Jones improperly, limiting the evidentiary record and barring meaningful review; the Appeals Board found the exclusion of Dr. Shaw's QME reports improper under Labor Code section 4062.3 and related statutes, requiring further proceedings to develop the record and properly consider the cumulative trauma injury claim.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8318732 · 2024-05-17 · Bakersfield District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) The WCJ's decision must "set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on," so that "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]... For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Id. at p. 476 (citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).) Here, the WCJ concluded that there had been a violation of AD Rule 9982, without engaging in the necessary analysis under Labor Code section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786. Thus, we will defer the issue of the lien so that the WCJ can consider the application of Labor Code sections 4620, 4621, and 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786.

  The WCJ disallowed the lien based on Rule 9982(d) without applying the necessary analysis under Labor Code section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786; the Appeals Board deferred the issue for further proceedings to apply these legal standards.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ15809866 · 2024-04-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a February 22, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found good cause for the issuance of additional Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) panels in the specialties of ophthalmology, neurology, and psychiatry based upon the opinion of the orthopedic QME, Dr. Joanne Halbrecht, who recommended QMEs in those specialties after finding applicant's claims of injury to her "head, eyes, and stress" to be outside her area of expertise. (F&O, p. 3.)

  The orthopedic QME, Dr. Joanne Halbrecht, recommended additional QME panels in specialties outside her expertise due to applicant's claims of injury to head, eyes, and stress, establishing good cause for additional panels.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9916195 · 2024-01-04 · Fresno District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, that defendant's petition for reconsideration is GRANTED, and that as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the Findings of Fact of October 17, 2023 are RESCINDED, and the following Finding and Order is SUBSTITUTED in their place:

  The WCAB found that the statute of limitations and tolling issues regarding the specific injury claim require further proceedings and determination by the WCJ due to conflicting evidence about notice and knowledge of the injury and rights.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10631225 · 2023-10-30 · Salinas District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2FINDINGS AND ORDER 1. applicant, while employed on September 13, 2016, as a mechanic, Occupational Group No. 370, at Watsonville, California, by Dick Peixoto, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head and neck. 2. At the time of the injury, the employer's workers' compensation carrier was Star Insurance Company, administered by Meadowbrook Insurance Group. 3. Applicant's September 1, 2021 Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability was filed timely. 4. Applicant has not sustained new and further disability; therefore, good cause has not been shown to reopen Applicant's Award. 5. Defendant's Petition to Dismiss Applicant's September 1, 2021 Petition for New and Further Disability is granted. 6. This decision does not affect Applicant's August 1, 2017 Award of further medical treatment, which remains in effect.

  Applicant did not sustain new and further disability; no good cause shown to reopen award based on QME report and lack of new medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ9380781 · 2022-11-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant, Citywide Scanning Service, Inc. petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on April 19, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found the lien claimant failed to prove the services provided were valid med-legal costs. The WCJ ordered the lien claimant to take nothing for their lien.

  The WCJ initially found the lien claimant failed to prove valid med-legal costs, but the parties later stipulated to a payment resolving the lien claim dispute.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15122456 · 2022-08-18 · Pomona District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3The parties proceeded to trial on March 29, 2022. They stipulated that applicant sustained injury AOE/OCE to his head, right ear in the form of hearing loss, and in the form of loss of smell. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), March 29, 2022, p. 2.) The issues submitted for decision included temporary disability/permanent and stationary date, and whether the reports from treating physician, Dr. Dahi, are substantial evidence. (MOH/SOE, pp. 2 § 3.)

  The WCAB found that the medical evidence from neurologists did not address all symptoms affecting disability status and that the treating physician's reports lacked substantial evidence and clear opinion on temporary disability, warranting further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8827235 · 2022-07-11 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Upon very close scrutiny of the complex and voluminous complete medical record submitted before and after development of the record, with the trial briefs submitted, the undersigned found the reports of Dr. Mark Spoonamore, read with his deposition transcript, are the better reasoned and more persuasive.

  The WCJ found the reports of Dr. Spoonamore to be better reasoned, more persuasive, and substantial evidence supporting industrial causation of the cervical spine injury, while Dr. Silver's reports lacked persuasive and credible medical reasoning and were not substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10077484 · 2022-04-27 · Bakersfield District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations in the Petition, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report from page 3 to page 15, line 3, which we adopt and incorporate by this reference thereto, and for the reasons discussed below, we will affirm the F&A except that we will amend the F&A to defer the issues of whether the treatment that Spine and Orthopedic Center provided applicant was necessary and appropriate medical treatment to cure or relieve her from the effects of her cumulative injury. (Finding of Fact 7). Based thereon, we will amend the Award and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The WCAB deferred the issue of whether the treatment provided by Spine and Orthopedic Center was necessary and appropriate medical treatment because the Board lacks medical expertise to determine consistency with MTUS and Labor Code section 4604.5, and recommended further proceedings to address this issue.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12245760 · 2022-04-11 · Salinas District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant claimed injury AOE/COE to his neck, right arm, and right shoulder, while employed during the period from 1/1/08 through 1/8/19 as a mechanic, at Gonzales, California, by BC Labor Contractors, Inc., then insured by Star Insurance Company.

  Applicant failed to prove injury AOE/COE; no medical evidence supported cumulative trauma or specific injury; applicant had ample time to obtain evidence but did not; petition for reconsideration denied on merits.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• STAR INSURANCE COMPANY
• Star Insurance Company
• STAR INSURANCE
• Star Insurance
• Star Insurance Company Adjusted by Meadowbrook Insurance Group
• STAR INDEMNITY and LIABILITY COMPANY
• Star 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.