Starr Indemnity & Liability 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 5
• Anaheim 2
• Fresno 2
• Oakland 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Lodi 1
• Riverside 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Bernardino 1
• San Diego 1
• San Francisco 1
• San Jose 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.

• 11 for the defense
• 8 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 21 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.

• ADJ10598940 · 2026-04-10 · Fresno District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12III DISCUSSION I. The WCAB had no jurisdiction and therefore the Medical Unit had no jurisdiction for Gallagher Bassett to request panel # 7404253 on 4/9/21. The board has no jurisdiction over any aspect of a workers' compensation claim until an application for adjudication has been filed. This rule has been codified in Regulation 10450(b). The Medical Unit, which issues QME panels, operates under the authority of the WCAB. Since the WCAB has no jurisdiction until an application is filed, the Medical Unit cannot issue a QME panel without an underlying case that gives the WCAB jurisdiction. In this case, as of 4/9/21 ADJ16413854 did not exist. There was no petition for new and further disability filed in ADJ10598940. No jurisdiction had been established on 4/9/21 to request panel # 7404253. (Labor Code Section 5500, nor Regulation 10450(b).) Therefore, panel # 7404253 is an invalid panel. a. There is no legal basis to argue Panel #7404253 dated 4/9/21 was requested to enforce a stipulated medical award. Future medical awards are enforced pursuant to LC § 4610. Treating physicians submit requests for authorization (RFAs) for medical treatment. The RFAs are then subject to utilization review (UR). b.

  The WCAB lacked jurisdiction to issue QME Panel 7404253 on 4/9/21 because the underlying case ADJ16413854 did not exist at that time, and no petition for new and further disability was filed in ADJ10598940. Therefore, the panel was invalid and Dr. Graham's reports were excluded.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ18371631 · 2026-03-13 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.'" (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Here, to find industrial injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees, the WCJ relied on the medical evidence of global PQME, Adam J.

  The WCJ relied on substantial medical evidence from PQME Dr. Stoller and credible applicant testimony to find injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees during the cumulative trauma period through June 30, 2017.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ17880601 · 2026-02-26 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, defendant provided no such evidence. Defendant contends that applicant's failure to present substantial medical evidence of a psyche claim effectively rebuts the presumption of compensability under section 5402. (Petition, p. 2.) This is not the standard. Additionally, to the extent that defendant conflates compensability with the nature and extent of injury, we remind defendant that the issue of nature and extent of injury has yet to be determined. The medical reporting and deposition testimony of Dr. Davis, however, does establish industrial causation.

  The defendant failed to provide evidence discovered after the 90-day period to rebut the presumption of compensability under section 5402, and the medical evidence established industrial causation.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18302905 · 2025-07-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 15, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) on July 10, 2023, while employed as a ground operations worker by JetBlue Airways Corporation at Los Angeles Airport (LAX); that applicant's injury was not barred by the going and coming rule based on the special risk exception to that rule; and that all other pending issues, including parts of body injured, remain bifurcated and off-calendar. The WCJ ordered this matter off calendar for further discovery.

  The WCJ's findings that the injury was AOE/COE and not barred by the going and coming rule under the special risk exception are supported by substantial evidence, including applicant's routine exposure to the risks of navigating World Way at LAX, which is a high-traffic environment shared by employees and the public, and the Appeals Board defers to the WCJ's factual findings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13319375 · 2024-12-20 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 27, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that materials from applicant's third party civil claim, including a November 30, 2022 report of Mechel Henry, M.D., transcript of Dr. Henry's February 21, 2023 deposition, transcript of the October 4, 2023 trial proceedings, and a medical presentation/demonstrative prepared by Dr. Henry, were inadmissible and unable to be submitted to the panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs) for review and comment. The WCJ found that the reporting, testimony, and exhibits were obtained for the sole purpose of contradicting the panel QMEs in the instant case and were not those of a consulting physician, or a treating physician, agreed medical evaluator, or panel QME, as contemplated under Labor Code1 section 4061(i).

  The Appeals Board found that Dr. Henry's materials were not solely retained to rebut QMEs and were relevant medical evidence admissible under Labor Code section 4062.3(a), distinguishing Batten and following Jacobs, thus admissible to be sent to panel QMEs for review and comment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17646368 · 2024-12-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11This appears to be a finger injury case with minimal residual orthopedic disability after corrective surgery, with the possibility of some other issues as a result of the injury and/or medication. The Court notes that this is not yet a question of additional panels, but of the initial panel, and it appears that Applicant met the procedural requirements for selection of the initial panel specialty.

  The court found insufficient evidence to find the selected gastroenterology specialty inappropriate and denied the request for a replacement QME panel.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ17121403 · 2023-10-24 · San Bernardino District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, applicant claimed a cumulative injury but the WCJ found that he did not meet his burden of proof to support industrial causation and ordered that he take nothing. (F&O, pp. 1-2.) In coming to this conclusion, the WCJ found that testimony by the applicant not credible. (OOD, pp. 2-3.) Applicant objected to the DOR because he was entitled to a comprehensive medical- legal evaluation with a qualified medical examiner in order to settle the current dispute with regards to compensability. More significantly, there was no medical evidence presented at the trial, and with respect to the issue of whether applicant sustained a cumulative injury, medical evidence regarding causation is key.

  The WCJ found applicant not credible and no medical evidence was presented at trial; however, the Appeals Board found the record was insufficiently developed on the threshold issue of industrial causation and remanded for further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11124930 · 2023-08-14 · Riverside District OfficeLiensmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant, Edwin Haronian, M.D., by and through his representatives Synapse Lien Unit, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on March 13, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found that lien claimant failed to prove applicant sustained industrial injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and disallowed petitioner's lien in its entirety.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10507939 · 2021-06-03 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5If the true basis for the WCJ's finding of no bilateral knee injury is that applicant's claim was made beyond the Statute of Limitations (an affirmative defense), we cannot uphold it because the WCJ's Opinion on Decision did not provide a complete factual and legal analysis of the elements necessary to sustain the defense. (See Lab. Code, § 5313.) The Opinion on Decision enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the actual basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful. (Evans v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753 [33 Cal. Comp. Cases 350].)

  The WCJ's finding of no bilateral knee injury was reversed because the WCJ did not provide a complete factual and legal analysis of the statute of limitations defense and further development of the record was warranted due to evidence suggesting possible cumulative trauma injury to the knees.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11548913 · 2021-05-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8*** 3. Exhibit 2 is admitted in evidence. 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that good cause exists to reopen

  The WCJ found good cause to reopen based on Dr. Miller's QME report showing medical evidence of concentration and memory issues and no bad faith by applicant; the WCAB affirmed and amended the order to admit the report.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9013590 · 2018-10-23 · Fresno District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

  Determinative passage · p.201 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Removal of the Workers' Compensation

  The Board found the WCJ's findings regarding ex parte communication and the remedy were not final orders and that removal, not reconsideration, was the proper procedural avenue. The matter was remanded for the trier of fact to determine if there was an ex parte communication and the appropriate remedy.

  Official decision · page 20 →
• ADJ20803692 · 2025-10-22 · Van Nuys 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

  Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy if final decision adverse to petitioner issued.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 14.

• STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY
• Starr Indemnity & Liability Company
• Starr Indemnity and Liability Company
• STARR INDEMNITY
• Starr Indemnity and Liability Insurance Company
• Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company
• STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY CORPORATION
• STARR INDEMNITY LIABILITY NEW 15 YORK
• STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY COMPANY
• STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY
• Starr Indemnity and Liability
• Starr Indemnity Liability

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.