Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 38
• Van Nuys 34
• Los Angeles 25
• Oakland 21
• Long Beach 14
• Anaheim 12
• Marina del Rey 9
• Bakersfield 6
• Pomona 6
• Sacramento 6
• San Francisco 6
• San Jose 6

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.

• 99 for the defense
• 83 for the applicant
• 32 returned for more record

Counted over 199 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.

• ADJ13582881 · 2026-06-26 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of March 16, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed as an assistant manager applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of a hernia and to the low back, causing the need for further medical treatment. Industrial injury to the hernia had been accepted by the defendant, but injury to the low back was contested. All other issues including date of injury, temporary disability, and permanent disability were deferred.

  The Appeals Board found substantial evidence supporting industrial injury to the low back based on the entire medical record and credible applicant testimony, favoring the treating physician's opinions over the PQME Dr. Shah's contrary opinion.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8015380 · 2026-06-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.18For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the July 2, 2019 Findings and Order is AMENDED as follows:

  The Appeals Board deferred the issue of application of section 3600.5(b) because the question of Ohio's reciprocity statute effective date requires further factual development at the trial level.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ11324273 · 2026-06-01 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on March 16, 2026, of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)'s February 17, 2026, Joint Findings, Award & Order (FA&O), in which, as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained 57% disability in ADJ11728160, the cumulative claim.

  The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to rebut the AMA Guides impairment ratings and denied the claim for 100% disability under the presumption of total disability for loss of both hands or use thereof.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20267126 · 2026-05-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 3, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, back, arms, and shoulders, while employed as a sales representative during the period from March 15, 2008 to December 18, 2009. The WCJ further found that the applicant's claim is not barred by the statutes of limitations; the claim is not barred by laches; the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Raffy Mirzayan, M.D., was not timely served; defendant formally objected to the timeliness of Dr. Mirzayan's report prior to the service of that report; the reporting of Dr. Mirzayan has been stricken from the record, the court lacks sufficient credible medical evidence to adjudicate injury AOE/COE; and the record needs to be further developed in order to adjudicate injury AOE/COE.

  The WCJ found applicant's credible testimony that he reported injury to his manager and was unaware of workers' compensation rights, tolling the statute of limitations due to employer's failure to notify and provide claim form; defendant failed to prove affirmative defenses of statute of limitations and laches; PQME Dr. Mirzayan's report was stricken as untimely, leaving insufficient medical evidence, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20478767 · 2026-05-08 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based on our review of the record, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. There is a lack of substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's finding that applicant did not sustain injury to his alleged non-psychiatric body parts. By July 25, 2025, applicant had alleged injury to his head in the form of headaches, teeth, and circulatory system. In the initial evaluation on July 29, 2025, Dr. Abenes noted applicant's complaints related to his heart, headaches, and teeth. (Applicant Exhibit #1, at pp. 5, 7, 13.) Substantial medical evidence regarding causation to the alleged non-psychiatric body parts is necessary to render a determination on the issue of whether or not applicant sustained a separate and distinct injury from the psychiatric injury and that, in turn, is not subject to section 3208.3(d).

  The WCAB found the record was not properly developed with substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's finding of no injury to non-psychiatric body parts. The Board has a duty to further develop the record where evidence is insufficient and granted reconsideration to allow further proceedings on the non-psychiatric claims.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ20938147 · 2026-04-30 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, defendant's notice of delay was served on May 23, 2025 within California on applicant by regular mail. (Exhibit A.) The parties were therefore required to wait until fifteen (15) days after May 23, 2025, or until the after 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2025 before requesting a panel. In their panel request, however, defendant indicated that the "date of request for comprehensive exam" was May 22, 2025. (Exhibit B, p. 3.) This is contrary to the facts of the case and contrary to the parties' stipulation to a May 23, 2025 "start date per Labor Code 4062.2." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE), February 2, 2026, p. 2.) We therefore conclude that considering defendant's usage of an incorrect date, defendant's QME panel request was invalid. Accordingly, the issuance of panel 7823574 is similarly invalid.

  Defendant's QME panel request was premature due to incorrect date usage, making the panel invalid and entitling applicant to a replacement chiropractic panel.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11142067 · 2026-03-06 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6First, the apportionment opinion of QME Dr. Purcell does not constitute substantial medical evidence as it is conclusory and without adequate explanation. Not only is it conclusory, but it is also vague as Dr. Purcell states that "other factors" caused disability without describing any such factors. The apportionment opinion of Dr. Purcell cannot be followed.

  The Board found that the QME Dr. Purcell's apportionment opinion was conclusory and vague, thus not substantial evidence, and instead relied on the parties' prior stipulation to Dr. Roth's opinion assigning 50% apportionment to left knee arthritis. Defendant failed its burden of proof on apportionment to other body parts. The Board awarded 54% permanent partial disability based on this reasoning.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16089982 · 2026-02-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Accordingly, we concur with the WCJ's determination that the reports of Michael Einbund, M.D., Rosabel Young, M.D., Michael Wells, M.D., and Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., are admissible in proceedings before the WCAB, and may further be submitted for review by the appropriately selected panel QMEs in this matter. We express no opinion as to the evidentiary weight the reports should be accorded, either by the QMEs selected by the parties pursuant to current section 4060 and 4062.2, or by the WCJ.

  The WCJ correctly admitted applicant's self-procured medical reports obtained under former section 4060 as they were obtained prior to the parties' selection of QMEs under current sections 4060 and 4062.2, and not solely to rebut the panel QME's opinion. Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the reports' admissibility.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ18961023 · 2026-01-23 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7After careful consideration of the record, we agree with the WCJ that cost petitioner failed to demonstrate that defendant's actions were frivolous or in bad faith so as to warrant sanctions pursuant to section 5813. Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration.

  The WCAB found no evidence that defendant's delays in payment were bad faith or frivolous, but rather routine errors, thus sanctions were not warranted.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11333212 · 2025-12-22 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4The Agreed Medical Examiner (AME), Dr. Peter Mandell, has provided numerous reports. He found her to be permanent and stationary in his report of October 1, 2020 (Exh. 107) and addressed the permanent impairment of 8% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) for the left shoulder and 14% WPI for the cervical spine, with no apportionment of permanent disability. In his December 19, 2020 report (Exh. 105), Dr. Mandell clarified that applicant is totally disabled "due to a combination of her orthopedic and CRPS problems." He also recommended that she see a neurologist or specialist in CRPS. In his latest report of August 17, 2023 (Exh. 101), Dr. Mandell noted at p. 6 that her reviewed conflicting medical opinions regarding the CRPS diagnosis and indicated that she "probably" does have CRPS. He then stated at p. 7 that she is 100% unemployable, due to a combination of her musculoskeletal problems and her CRPS.

  The WCJ found 100% permanent disability based on medical opinions including Dr. Mandell and Dr. Feinberg, but the Appeals Board found the record incomplete and unclear on the permanent disability analysis and employability, requiring further development and reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8534435 · 2025-12-19 · Oakland District OfficeContribution / subrogationdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7For all the reasons above, we therefore conclude that CEC has no right to credit in these contribution proceedings stemming from its Longshore Act settlement. Accordingly, we will affirm the arbitrator's F&A, except that we will amend it to clarify that no credit was previously awarded, as described above. In all other respects, including the award of contribution subject to adjustment by the parties with jurisdiction reserved to the arbitrator in the event the parties cannot determine the proper amount of contribution themselves, the F&A remains intact.

  CEC was not entitled to a credit for its Longshore Act settlement in the California contribution proceedings because it had the opportunity to assert a credit in the federal case and failed to do so; California law does not provide for such a credit in these circumstances, and the purpose of preventing double recovery was not implicated.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ19575878 · 2025-12-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on September 9, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed by defendant during the cumulative period ending July 2024, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to the left shoulder and deferred findings as to additional body parts; that the date of injury pursuant to Labor Code section 5412 was the date of the agreed medical evaluator (AME)'s report; and that the left shoulder injury resulted in temporary disability.1

  The Appeals Board found the medical evidence insufficient and not substantial to support the WCJ's findings on cumulative injury and date of injury, requiring further development of the record and updated expert medical opinion.

  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 43.

• TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA
• Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
• TRAVELERS
• TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY
• TRAVELERS INSURANCE
• Travelers
• TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY
• TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA
• TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA
• TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY
• Travelers Indemnity Company
• Travelers Insurance

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.