United States Fire 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 5
• Van Nuys 5
• Riverside 3
• Marina del Rey 2
• San Francisco 2
• Oakland 1
• San Bernardino 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Stockton 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.

• 9 for the applicant
• 5 for the defense
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 17 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.

• ADJ19126786 · 2026-01-20 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5INTRODUCTION By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on August 22, 20251, defendant seeks reconsideration of my July 31, 2025 Joint Findings, Award and Order, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed1 on September 30, 2016 (ADJ19126786) as an office assistant/secretary (Occupational Group 211) at San Jose, California, by Mobile Home Communities of America, Incorporated, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine, but did not sustain injury to the bilateral ankles, causing permanent disability of 59% after apportionment. I also found that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma to the same body partes during the cumulative trauma period ending on September 30, 3016 in ADJ19126787. In reaching my decision, I relied on the report of one of the Qualified Medical Examiners in this case, Dr. Rabeah Emanour, whose opinion I found mor persuasive and logical than the other QME in these cases. Dr. Eric Carlblom.

  The WCJ found the opinion of Dr. Emampour more persuasive and logical than Dr. Carlblom's, supporting a 59% permanent disability rating after apportionment. The Appeals Board agreed, finding Dr. Emampour's opinion substantial evidence and denying the defendant's petition to reduce the rating or admit a supplemental report.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ6508173 · 2026-01-16 · Marina del Rey District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations in applicant's Petition and defendant's Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report with respect thereto. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&A, and substitute a new F&A that finds that applicant sustained injury to her lungs, upper digestive system (in the form of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), psyche and in the form of a sleep disorder, but not in the form of METs because it is a measure of functional limitation and not a separate body part; and to defer the issue of permanent disability, apportionment and attorney fees, and the issue of whether the increase under section 4658(d) applies.

  The Board found injury to lungs, upper digestive system (GERD), psyche, and sleep disorder but not to METs, which is a measure of functional limitation, not a body part. The issue of permanent disability, apportionment, and the 15% increase under section 4658(d) was deferred for further development due to incomplete medical opinion and need for further record development.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ8371384 · 2025-11-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5On August 18, 2025, the WCJ issued a Joint Findings & Orders and Opinion on Decision. As relevant herein, the WCJ found that none of the lien claimants met their burden of proof to recover on their liens.

  The WCJ initially found lien claimants did not meet burden of proof for reasonable medical treatment, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and granted reconsideration for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ401657 · 2025-10-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, AME Dr. Siebold issued eight reports and was deposed on three occasions. Dr. Siebold concluded that applicant sustained cumulative injury to his cervical spine, right shoulder, right upper extremity, lumbar spine, left knee, and right knee. While the WCJ may have had some qualms about the sufficiency of the reporting with respect to more complex issues such as applicant's level of permanent disability and causation of permanent disability and apportionment, we believe that Dr. Siebold's reporting more than meets the standard articulated in Clark, supra, as to causation of injury. Therefore, we will rescind the F&O and substitute a new F&O that finds that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his cervical spine, right shoulder, right upper extremity, lumbar spine, left knee, and right knee.

  The WCAB found that the prior stipulations were not enforceable because the WCJ did not make findings or orders approving them, implicitly rejecting the stipulations. The AME Dr. Siebold's reports were found to constitute substantial evidence supporting cumulative injury to specified body parts during the employment period. The reports of Dr. Brourman were rejected as not substantial evidence due to inadequate history and incorrect legal standard application.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11150106 · 2025-07-15 · San Francisco District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, in a report dated September 11, 2023, orthopedic PQME, Dr. D'Amico, indicated that with respect to applicant's alleged neurological issues, he could not provide a specific diagnosis. (Defense Exhibit A, p. 23.) As such, he recommended a "repeat EMG/nerve velocity study of both upper and lower extremities" as well as a "neurologic consultation." (Id. at p. 24.) Thereafter, a timely petition requesting additional panels in various specialties, including neurology, was submitted by applicant on August 23, 2024.

  Dr. D'Amico could not provide a specific diagnosis for neurological issues and recommended further studies; good cause found for additional neurology panel.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14138679 · 2025-06-16 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on March 3, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant was not employed by defendant as a driver during the period December 10, 2020 through December 24, 2020, but was an independent contractor.

  The WCJ failed to evaluate whether defendant met its burden to rebut the employment presumption under the correct legal standards, including the section 2775 ABC test and Business and Professions Code section 7451 test, and improperly placed the burden on applicant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8166020 · 2024-12-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8FINDINGS OF FACT 1. (ADJ8166020) the applicant, while employed on May 2, 2008, as a certified nursing assistant, at Sylmar, California, by Ember Care, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was Technology Insurance Company, administered by Majestic (currently AmTrust), sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her back, but not to her arms, fingers or shoulders. 2. (ADJ8371382) the applicant, while employed on November 24, 2011, as a certified nursing assistant, at El Segundo, California, by Life House Holdings LLC, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was United States Fire Insurance Company, administered by Zenith, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her right hand and wrist, but not to her back. 3. (ADJ8371384) the applicant, while employed during the period commencing April 26, 2011 through April 26, 2012, as a certified nursing assistant, at El Segundo, California, by Life House Holdings LLC, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was United States Fire Insurance Company, administered by Zenith, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her right wrist and hand, left wrist and hand, and low back. 4. The issue of whether lien claimants are entitled to recovery on their liens is deferred.

  The WCAB found substantial evidence in the AME Dr. Danzig's opinion that applicant sustained injuries on May 2, 2008, November 24, 2011, and during the period April 26, 2011 to April 26, 2012, arising out of and in the course of employment, overruling the WCJ's contrary finding.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11273405 · 2023-07-31 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant RMS Medical Group (RMS) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 11, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the issues regarding medical legal reimbursement, penalties and interest, and costs, have previously been addressed by the Appeals Board and therefore are moot; and that defendant has not acted in bad faith so RMS is not entitled to an award for Labor Code section costs and sanctions.

  The WCAB found that RMS was entitled to payment for medical-legal services plus statutory penalties and interest, but not entitled to costs and sanctions because defendant did not act in bad faith.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11273405 · 2022-10-03 · Riverside District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant RMS Medical Group (RMS) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 14, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that RMS was not entitled to receive payment for the medical-legal services it provided the applicant (applicant) on April 11, 2018, and the WCJ ordered that RMS take nothing by way of its lien.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10073209 · 2021-09-17 · San Bernardino District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Labor Code1 section 4663(a) provides that "[a]pportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation." (Lab. Code, § 4663(a).) Section 4664(a) states that "[t]he employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by the injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment." (Lab. Code, § 4664(a).) The defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1114 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].)

  The WCJ found that the PTP Dr. Paul Burton's apportionment opinion was not framed in terms of reasonable medical probability and lacked adequate explanation, thus failing to meet the legal standard for apportionment. Therefore, no apportionment was made for the right knee injury.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8878645 · 2021-04-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of September 26, 2019, the workers' compensation arbitrator ("Arbitrator") found that applicant filed a timely petition to reopen, that because "the medical report of Dr. Jae Hyung Chon has been received...the record is complete to issue a decision," and that "there are not sufficient grounds to support a petition to reopen for new and further disability." Pursuant to the above findings, the Arbitrator denied applicant's petition to reopen.

  The Arbitrator's summary denial lacked evidentiary and legal support, the medical report was not comprehensive, and further development of the medical record was required.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9347848 · 2024-06-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on March 14, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for Removal 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.

• UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
• United States Fire Insurance Company
• United States Fire 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.