Alaska National Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

• Apportionment3
• Jurisdiction / venue3
• Reopening / new and further disability2
• AOE/COE1
• Serious and willful misconduct1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Lodi 2
• Los Angeles 2
• Oakland 1
• Oxnard 1
• Pomona 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Diego 1
• San Jose 1
• Santa Rosa 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 6 for the applicant
• 3 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 11 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.

• ADJ16082204 · 2025-07-28 · Oxnard District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5III. Defendant carries the burden of proof on apportionment. (§ 5705.) Apportionment of permanent disability must address causation of disability and must constitute substantial evidence. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621 (Appeals Board en banc).) To constitute substantial evidence "... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Id. at 621.) Section 4664 allows apportionment to prior awards of disability. (§ 4664.) To prove apportionment under section 4664, defendant must first prove that a prior award of disability exists. (Pasquotto v. Hayward Lumber (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 223 [Appeals Board en banc opinion]; see also, Sanchez, supra; see also, Strong v. City and County of San Francisco (2005)

  Defendant failed to prove prior award of disability overlapping with current award and failed to provide medical evidence of overlap, thus failing burden of proof on apportionment.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ19257864 · 2024-10-14 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Currently, while we received the aforementioned Report of May 7, 2024, and are in receipt of the WCA's Findings and Award, the transcript of proceedings (Transcript), as well as several medical reports from Omar Tirmizi, M.D. and Clive Segil, M.D., the record still does not include applicant's deposition transcript, the reports of Dr. Bakshian, as well as most of applicant's exhibits, and all of defendant's exhibits.

  The Appeals Board found the record incomplete, lacking key exhibits and transcripts, preventing meaningful review and due process.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11685909 · 2024-04-03 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Sommer discussed causation of the neck injury, and found it stemmed from the October 31, 2016 injury. (Joint Exhibit J2, page 28; Joint Exhibit 6, pages 4, 45.) No medical evidence was submitted to contradict this. the applicant testified that he injured his neck in 2018 (MOH/SOE, page 5, lines 11 thru 12.) However, the only trial exhibit submitted by the applicant that referenced an injury on August 2, 2018 stated that the applicant injured his right shoulder and back on that date, not the neck. (Applicant's Exhibit 2.) If there is additional evidence, it should be noted that the finding of injury to the applicant's neck on October 31, 2016 does not preclude him from filing an additional claim/case for a neck injury in 2018.

  The WCJ found substantial medical evidence from agreed medical evaluators Dr. Newton and Dr. Sommer that the neck injury was caused by the October 31, 2016 incident, and no contradictory medical evidence was submitted.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13053362 · 2023-12-01 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, as quoted above, in his November 7, 2022 report, (referring to his July 15, 2022 report), Dr. Rutchik stated that in his January 27, 2022 report he had concluded that applicant's condition had reached MMI status "with 100% of his impairment attributed to the industrial activities; however, given his continued pain and difficulties, I would concur that the applicant is TTD at this time.... Therefore, I would opine that the applicant was TTD since at least February of 2022." (Joint Exh. 102, p. 11.) Clearly, Dr. Rutchik stated his conclusion but did not set forth the reasoning or the basis for his opinion. It appears that his only explanation for changing his previously stated opinion that applicant had reached MMI status was applicant's "continued pain and difficulties." However, "[a] temporary disability is an impairment reasonably expected to be cured or improved with proper medical treatment." (Signature Fruit Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.; Chavira v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

  Dr. Rutchik's reports lacked sufficient explanation and reasoning for his opinion that applicant was temporarily totally disabled since February 2022, thus not constituting substantial evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficient and remanded for further development.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11327965 · 2023-02-21 · Sacramento District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.3Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration and defer the issue of new and further disability with regard to the March 21, 2013 injury. The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) medical evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) Since, in accordance with that mandate, "it is well established that the WCJ or the Board may not leave undeveloped matters" within its acquired specialized knowledge (Id. at p. 404), pursuant to Labor Code section 5906, we will defer the issues of new and further disability with regard to the March 21, 2013 injury so the record may be clarified, by way of substantial medical evidence, regarding whether the March 21, 2013 injury caused the need for medical treatment or disability with regard to the low back.

  The record lacked substantial medical evidence explaining the causal connection between the 2013 injury and the low back condition, requiring further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13831424 · 2022-12-19 · San Diego District OfficeSerious and willful misconductapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Compensation for an employer's serious and willful misconduct "is clearly separate and distinct from the ordinary compensation benefits provided for under Section 3700" of the Labor Code and a compromise and release of these normal benefits cannot defeat and does not settle the claim for serious and willful misconduct benefits. (Rodgers v. Real Prop. Mgmt. Co. (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 561, 564-565, quoting Ray v. IAC (Wolgamott) (1956) 146 Cal. App.2d 393 [21 Cal.Comp.Cases 327].) Here, the value of the settlement is roughly equivalent to the present value of the statutory death benefit allowable to one total dependent. There is no evidence of consideration paid in exchange for settling a claim for increased benefits contemplated by sections 4553 and 4702. (Lab. Code, § 4553, 4702.) The insurer assumed liability for compensation and thus stepped into the shoes of the employer with respect to settling the statutory death benefit. (Lab. Code, § 3753, et seq.) The insurer does not cover S&W claims (MOH/SOE, August 18, 2022, trial, p. 11; see also Ins. Code, § 11661) and the only parties to the C&R were applicant and the insurer. Thus, while the employer may rely on the insurer to settle the death benefit, the employer remains personally liable for any potential S&W claim.

  The Compromise and Release did not settle the claim for serious and willful misconduct benefits, which are separate and distinct from ordinary compensation benefits. The employer remains personally liable for any potential serious and willful claim despite the settlement of the death benefit with the insurer.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ13119496 · 2025-09-29 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of a June 18, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered replacement of psychiatric panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), Dr. Peter Turek, based upon a finding that applicant's service upon Dr. Turek of "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" constituted "information" in violation of Labor Code1 section 4062.3(b). (F&O, June 18, 2025, p. 2.)

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ's replacement order lacked sufficient rationale and failed to show prejudice or why less drastic measures were not available, and that good cause existed to decline replacement of Dr. Turek as PQME.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13119496 · 2025-02-24 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the November 20, 2024 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that Dr. Peter Turek be replaced as the psyche panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to applicant's apparent violation of Labor Code1 section 4062.3(b) when applicant's attorney simultaneously provided defendant and Dr. Turek with email attachments consisting of a medical report from orthopedic panel QME, Dr. Michael Klassen, and "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" with "hand-written notations presumably created by Applicant's Attorney." (F&O, p. 2.)

  The WCAB found that the WCJ's order to replace Dr. Turek was not supported by adequate rationale or evidence and that the applicant's attorney's provision of documents did not constitute impermissible ex parte communication warranting removal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13990480 · 2021-09-21 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1On August 11, 2021, defendant filed a Petition for Removal regarding the setting of this matter for trial. On September 20, 2021, the parties filed a signed Compromise and Release. Due to this development, it appears the Petition for Removal is moot and will be dismissed.

  The Petition for Removal became moot due to the parties filing a signed Compromise and Release before the hearing.

  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.

• ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• Alaska National Insurance Company
• Alaska National Services 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.