United Wisconsin 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
• Van Nuys 6
• Long Beach 4
• Sacramento 4
• Anaheim 3
• Pomona 2
• San Diego 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Oakland 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.

• 16 for the applicant
• 12 for the defense
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 31 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.

• ADJ16963666 · 2026-04-13 · San Diego District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by not issuing a replacement panel in the field of orthopedic surgery and by not deeming inadmissible the medical reporting of the panel qualified evaluator (PQME), James Esch, M.D.

  The Appeals Board found no evidence that Dr. Esch's license was suspended or revoked, only that it was delinquent due to unpaid renewal fees, which was remedied before the decision date, so the replacement panel was not justified and the PQME reports were admissible.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13930082 · 2026-03-06 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, we are unable to conduct meaningful review of the petition or render a decision until we have received a complete record including stipulations, issues and exhibits appropriately identified including the offering party. Thus, this is not a final decision on the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration, and once a final decision is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to sections 5950 et seq.

  The Appeals Board could not conduct meaningful review because the record lacked required documents, including stipulations, issues, and exhibits appropriately identified.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ14570760 · 2025-11-17 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant has "chronic lung disease" for purposes of Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(I)1, which entitles her to receive up to an aggregate of 240 weeks of total temporary disability indemnity pursuant to section 4656(c)(3).

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence supports that applicant has a chronic lung disease industrially related to COVID-19, entitling her to up to 240 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, rejecting defendant's argument that the medical reports must use the exact phrase 'chronic lung disease'.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16748364 · 2025-06-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2The WCJ's Findings and Order (F&O) finds that "[a]pplicant has demonstrated his spouse is capable of providing overnight attendant care." (F&O, Finding of Fact No. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision reviews the medical and testimonial evidence, and notes that applicant's spouse has provided both primary and secondary support to applicant since applicant returned home from the hospital in March, 2023. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 4.) Applicant's spouse currently provides assistance with applicant's activities of daily living (ADLs) from early in the morning until the caregiver arrives at 7:00AM. During the day, applicant's spouse provides

  The WCJ found credible evidence that applicant's spouse has been providing appropriate overnight care since March 2023 and is capable of continuing to do so; the Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's findings and denied reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13475083 · 2025-02-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, the parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum wage earner on March 11, 2024, after the parties were ordered to develop the record on applicant's earnings. (Minutes of Hearting dated March 11, 2024, p. 2:7.) Although the issue of earnings was still an issue for trial, as the WCJ points out (Report, p. 7), there is no record that defendant moved to be relieved from such stipulation and section 5702 does not permit the WCJ to find contrary to the stipulation absent a hearing and an opportunity for the parties to be heard on this issue. The record does not show a hearing or trial past March 11, 2024. Instead, the record is full of petitions for reconsideration followed by multiple orders vacating and amending Findings and Awards, with the same judicial determination that applicant is not a maximum earner and only clerical changes on the amount of applicant's earnings. This is not permitted absent a full hearing on why the stipulation should be set aside. More importantly, the record does not show that defendant sought to set aside the stipulation.

  The parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum earner, and the WCAB held that the stipulation could not be set aside without a hearing, so the finding of maximum earnings was affirmed.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12047380 · 2024-11-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of April 20, 2021, the workers' compensation judge ("WCJ") found that applicant was employed by "Baron HR," and not by "Trion Solutions," in connection with applicant's claims that he sustained industrial injury to various body parts on February 22, 2019 (ADJ12047380) and during the period January 6, 2014 through February 22, 2019 (ADJ12048111). The WCJ also found that there was general-special employer relationship between "Baron HR LLC" as the general employer and "O'Tasty Food, Inc." allegedly insured by Falls Lake Insurance, administered by Sedgwick - as the special employer. In addition, the WCJ disallowed admission of Exhibits B and G into evidence, and the WCJ ordered Falls Lake Insurance ("Falls Lake"), the alleged insurer of special employer "O'Tasty Food, Inc.," to administer applicant's claims of injury.

  The WCJ's findings on employment and administration were incomplete, inconsistent, and included issues not raised at trial, raising due process concerns. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings to clarify the employment relationship and administration issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16177467 · 2024-07-15 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ found applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning her employment with both Seenager and Pacifica. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that QME Dr. Murphy found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury as a result of repetitive standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, squatting and lifting for both employers. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5-6.) The Report further notes applicant's testimony that her work activities for Pacifica were "not significantly more or different than the ones for Seenager...she lifted people, not packages, the weights were equivalent; and 90% of her work required that she be on her feet." (Report, at p. 4.) Based on applicant's testimony, the description of her job duties and physical requirements of both positions, as well as the QME's causation analysis, the WCJ determined there to be but one cumulative injury spanning both employments. (Finding of Fact No. 1; Opinion on Decision at pp. 5-6.)

  The WCJ found and the Board concurred that the applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning employment with both employers, supported by QME Dr. Murphy's report and applicant's testimony about similar job duties.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16359966 · 2024-04-23 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Shortly before the scheduled end of the lunch break at 3:00 a.m., an automobile collided into the bus stop where Gus, Giovanni, and the Applicant were waiting. (MOE/SOE Dec 5, 2023, pg. 6, lines 3; 8-10.) As a result of this incident, the Applicant alleged to have sustained injuries to his legs, head, neck, hips, left hand, left middle finger, left ring finger, right knee, right ankle, left ear, vision, psyche, and in the form of loss of consciousness and depression. (Id., pg. 2, lines 5-9.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found the injury was within the special risk exception to the going and coming rule because the applicant was waiting for employer-provided transportation and engaged in reasonable activities within the field of risk created by the employment.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ17141277 · 2024-01-31 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Based on our review of the record, it appears that the parties engaged in proper discovery procedures regarding both injury claims until defendant received the report from QME Dr. Esfahane stating that the June 13, 2022 dog bite did not cause applicant's June 20, 2022 stroke. (Def. Exh. F, p. 15.) Defendant then canceled the scheduled neurological examination by QME Dr. Maasumi. Without addressing the issue of whether defendant's conduct was appropriate, it must be noted that Dr. Esfahane specifically stated he was not provided any medical records and/or test reports to review.(Def. Exh. F, p. 12.) Thus, his report is not substantial evidence. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Also, there is no evidence in the record indicating that a neurological examination/report would not enable the WCJ to determine whether applicant's employment was a cause of applicant's stroke.

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the neurological QME evaluation being conducted, and that the QME report from Dr. Esfahane was not substantial evidence because he lacked medical records to review. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the neurology QME evaluation.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11626536 · 2024-01-02 · Santa Ana District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5However, these contentions as asserted in Defendant's petition for reconsideration were not raised as issues to be addressed during the trial. In furtherance of judicial economy, an issue not raised at trial is considered waived. Ingram Micro v WCAB (Ordonez), 64 CCC 100 (1998).

  The petition for reconsideration was denied because the issue of non-compliance with Labor Code sections 4903.05 and 4903.8 was not raised at trial and thus waived.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16112899 · 2023-07-11 · Sacramento District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the contents of the Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will amend the March 28, 2023 F&O to find that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event (Finding 5) and that applicant's claim of injury to her psyche is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Otherwise, we will affirm the March 28, 2023 F&O.

  The Board found that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event, thus the applicant's psychiatric injury claim is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The applicant's credible testimony and expert medical opinions supported causation and compensability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15799667 · 2023-03-10 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her head while employed by defendant and that all other issues are deferred.

  Applicant was injured on employer's premises while waiting for her ride home after her shift ended, which is reasonably contemplated by employment and not a material deviation from duties, thus compensable under Labor Code section 3600(a).

  Official decision · page 2 →

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 WISCONSIN INSURANCE COMPANY
• United Wisconsin Insurance Company
• United Wisconsin Insurance
• UNITED WISCONSIN INSURANCE
• UNITED WISCONSIN INSURANCE NEW BERLIN
• United Wisconsin Insurance New Berlin
• UNITED WISCONSIN INS. CO.
• United Wisconsin Ins. Co.

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.