California WCABInsurance carrier

Amguard Insurance Company

Amguard Insurance Company is named as an insurance carrier in 14 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Substantial evidence / credibility (1) and Cumulative trauma (1). Defense most often ran through Albert and Mackenzie (2). The employer appearing most often is Simi Valley Cycles (2). The office that heard the most of them is Van Nuys.

Decisions: 14
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 9

What they litigate

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

Who defends them

5 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Whose claims they run

Simi Valley Cycles2
3 Amigos Market1
Colony Palms Operations, LLC1
El Alteno Tires, INC.1
Encore Brands Apparel Group, INC.1
Kabuki Japanese Restaurant1
La Venadita Meat Market, INC.1
Third Cancun Juice1
Trendz Beauty East Inc./shapes Brow Bar1
Vacasa, LLC1

Where they appear

Van Nuys 6
Anaheim 1
Fresno 1
Long Beach 1
Los Angeles 1
Oakland 1
Oxnard 1
Riverside 1
Sacramento 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.

7 for the defense
5 for the applicant
2 returned for more record

Counted over 14 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.

ADJ13898519 · 2025-06-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6This matter proceeded to trial on the issue of AOE/COE only, with all other issues bifurcated and deferred by Order of the Court. The matter was submitted on the documentary record - no testimony was received. Lien claimants relied on the reporting1 of Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C to establish injury AOE/COE. Defendant instead relied on the PQME reports2 of Dr. David Kim, M.D., which found no injury. The Court found the reporting of Dr. Haghighinia to be more persuasive and issued findings of injury AOE/COE on March 20, 2025. These were served by mail on March 25, 2025.
The WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE was supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Haghighinia, whose opinion was found credible and persuasive over the contrary opinion of Dr. Kim, which was rejected as not credible due to discounting applicant's history and complaints.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11713524 · 2024-11-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded
Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, we will rescind the F&O, and substitute findings that applicant's Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is December 2, 2020, and that the issue of whether applicant sustained separate cumulative injuries during his employment with defendant and his subsequent employment with All-Time Maintenance is deferred. We make no changes to Findings 1, 2 and 3. We will return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The Appeals Board found that the applicant's date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is December 2, 2020, based on medical confirmation by QME Dr. Viswanath, and that the issue of separate cumulative injuries with subsequent employer All-Time Maintenance is deferred due to lack of joinder and undeveloped record.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ13840656 · 2023-02-14 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.9Credibility determinations have been made based on the demeanor and appearances of the witnesses at trial. Careful consideration has been afforded to all of the exhibits in evidence. Based on a totality of the record, applicant suffered injury on April 30, 2020 and the injury is AOE/COE.
The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found the applicant's injury on April 30, 2020, to be compensable and arising out of and in the course of employment, supported by medical records and credible testimony.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ14111846 · 2023-02-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10Based upon the medical report(s) of AME report of Ronald Perelman, M.D., dated 8/16/2021, which is the better reasoned and more persuasive, it is found that applicant did not sustain injury to her bilateral upper extremities arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period of 12/1/2014 through 1/14/2021, and there was in fact - no continuous trauma injury. The undersigned found the Perelman report to be substantial medical evidence.
The WCJ and WCAB found the AME report of Dr. Perelman to be the better reasoned and more persuasive medical evidence, supported by the presence of a certified Farsi interpreter at the examination, despite applicant's contrary testimony.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ14069848 · 2022-12-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of September 28, 2022, wherein it was found that while "employed on November 21, 2020 and/or during the period August 2020 through November 21, 2020, as a motorcycle mechanic," applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, shoulders, left arm, and elbows.
The WCJ erred in finding a cumulative injury contrary to the unrebutted medical opinion that the applicant sustained a specific injury on November 21, 2020. The Board granted reconsideration and amended the decision to find only a specific injury.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14819466 · 2022-10-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The Applicant was employed for Defendant La Venadita Meat Market Inc. on May 22, 2021 when he sustained an admitted industrial injury to his right index finger. A QME panel was requested by Applicant's attorney on September 20, 2021. The panel was issued on September 21, 2021 and served on Defendant by Applicant's counsel on September 21, 2021. Applicant struck Russell Ellis on September 28, 2021. Defendant struck Joel Bird on October 4. 2021. The remaining QME on the list was Emily Holbrook. The matter proceeded to an Expedited Hearing on November 29, 2021. The issue before this court was whether the Defendant's panel strike was timely.
The court found that the defendant's strike on October 4, 2021, was timely because the time to strike is triggered by service of the panel list, not assignment, and the defendant's strike was within the allowed time including the mailbox rule extension.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11348346 · 2021-07-08 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration on April 1, 2021, on the issue of how to combine the disabilities. Applicant pointed out that Dr. McCormack had opined that due to the synergistic between the cognitive and the psychiatric disabilities, they should be added together. Pursuant to 8 Cal.Code.Regs 1096l(c), the Findings and Award of March 26, 2021, was rescinded and an Amended Findings and Award was issued on April 16, 2021. In the Amended Findings and Award it was determined that the orthopedic disabilities, the cognitive disability, and the psychiatric disability should each be added together, for a total of 100%.
The panel found that the additive approach to combining the three components of disability was appropriate due to the synergistic effect between the cognitive and psychiatric disabilities as explained by Dr. McCormack and supported by Dr. Pattison, consistent with the Kite precedent.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ10694775 · 2022-12-01 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on reconsideration, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving the issues in the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on April 21, 2021. Therefore, we vacate our order granting reconsideration and dismiss the Petition.
The parties settled the issues in the Petition for Reconsideration while the matter was pending, leading to dismissal of the Petition and vacating the order granting reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15988541 · 2022-11-10 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision dated September 15, 2022 and issued on September 16, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by the petitioner, so the petitions were dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14069848 · 2022-09-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In its prayer for relief, defendant also appears to seek disqualification of WCJ Devine, requesting that the case be reassigned to an "impartial judge." (Petition, p. 8.) Nowhere else in its Petition does defendant discuss or provide the grounds for this request, which, in any event, fails to meet the requirements of Appeals Board Rule 10960, which governs petitions for disqualification of a WCJ. Appeals Board Rule 10960 states:
Defendant failed to file a supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating facts establishing grounds for disqualification, thus dismissal was appropriate.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ11088046 · 2022-07-01 · Long Beach District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner did not submit its bill to the carrier within the statutory 12 month period. The last date of service was 8/13/18 and the bill was first submitted on 8/28/19.
The request for payment was not timely submitted within the statutory 12-month period, and no exception applied because the claim was never found compensable. Therefore, the request is barred under the plain meaning of the statute.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ13749524 · 2021-09-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10859, now § 10961 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020)), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.
The Appeals Board rescinded the decision and returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the matter is pending on reconsideration.
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.

AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY
AMGUARD INSURANCE WILKES BARRE
Amguard Insurance Company
AMGUARD INS

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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Amguard Insurance Company

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

7 for the defense

5 for the applicant

2 returned for more record

Counted over 14 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.

ADJ13898519 · 2025-06-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6This matter proceeded to trial on the issue of AOE/COE only, with all other issues bifurcated and deferred by Order of the Court. The matter was submitted on the documentary record - no testimony was received. Lien claimants relied on the reporting1 of Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C to establish injury AOE/COE. Defendant instead relied on the PQME reports2 of Dr. David Kim, M.D., which found no injury. The Court found the reporting of Dr. Haghighinia to be more persuasive and issued findings of injury AOE/COE on March 20, 2025. These were served by mail on March 25, 2025.

The WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE was supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Haghighinia, whose opinion was found credible and persuasive over the contrary opinion of Dr. Kim, which was rejected as not credible due to discounting applicant's history and complaints.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11713524 · 2024-11-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded

Determinative passage · p.10Accordingly, we will rescind the F&O, and substitute findings that applicant's Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is December 2, 2020, and that the issue of whether applicant sustained separate cumulative injuries during his employment with defendant and his subsequent employment with All-Time Maintenance is deferred. We make no changes to Findings 1, 2 and 3. We will return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The Appeals Board found that the applicant's date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is December 2, 2020, based on medical confirmation by QME Dr. Viswanath, and that the issue of separate cumulative injuries with subsequent employer All-Time Maintenance is deferred due to lack of joinder and undeveloped record.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ13840656 · 2023-02-14 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.9Credibility determinations have been made based on the demeanor and appearances of the witnesses at trial. Careful consideration has been afforded to all of the exhibits in evidence. Based on a totality of the record, applicant suffered injury on April 30, 2020 and the injury is AOE/COE.

The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found the applicant's injury on April 30, 2020, to be compensable and arising out of and in the course of employment, supported by medical records and credible testimony.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ14111846 · 2023-02-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10Based upon the medical report(s) of AME report of Ronald Perelman, M.D., dated 8/16/2021, which is the better reasoned and more persuasive, it is found that applicant did not sustain injury to her bilateral upper extremities arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period of 12/1/2014 through 1/14/2021, and there was in fact - no continuous trauma injury. The undersigned found the Perelman report to be substantial medical evidence.

The WCJ and WCAB found the AME report of Dr. Perelman to be the better reasoned and more persuasive medical evidence, supported by the presence of a certified Farsi interpreter at the examination, despite applicant's contrary testimony.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ14069848 · 2022-12-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of September 28, 2022, wherein it was found that while "employed on November 21, 2020 and/or during the period August 2020 through November 21, 2020, as a motorcycle mechanic," applicant sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, shoulders, left arm, and elbows.

The WCJ erred in finding a cumulative injury contrary to the unrebutted medical opinion that the applicant sustained a specific injury on November 21, 2020. The Board granted reconsideration and amended the decision to find only a specific injury.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14819466 · 2022-10-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2The Applicant was employed for Defendant La Venadita Meat Market Inc. on May 22, 2021 when he sustained an admitted industrial injury to his right index finger. A QME panel was requested by Applicant's attorney on September 20, 2021. The panel was issued on September 21, 2021 and served on Defendant by Applicant's counsel on September 21, 2021. Applicant struck Russell Ellis on September 28, 2021. Defendant struck Joel Bird on October 4. 2021. The remaining QME on the list was Emily Holbrook. The matter proceeded to an Expedited Hearing on November 29, 2021. The issue before this court was whether the Defendant's panel strike was timely.

The court found that the defendant's strike on October 4, 2021, was timely because the time to strike is triggered by service of the panel list, not assignment, and the defendant's strike was within the allowed time including the mailbox rule extension.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11348346 · 2021-07-08 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration on April 1, 2021, on the issue of how to combine the disabilities. Applicant pointed out that Dr. McCormack had opined that due to the synergistic between the cognitive and the psychiatric disabilities, they should be added together. Pursuant to 8 Cal.Code.Regs 1096l(c), the Findings and Award of March 26, 2021, was rescinded and an Amended Findings and Award was issued on April 16, 2021. In the Amended Findings and Award it was determined that the orthopedic disabilities, the cognitive disability, and the psychiatric disability should each be added together, for a total of 100%.

The panel found that the additive approach to combining the three components of disability was appropriate due to the synergistic effect between the cognitive and psychiatric disabilities as explained by Dr. McCormack and supported by Dr. Pattison, consistent with the Kite precedent.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ10694775 · 2022-12-01 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on reconsideration, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving the issues in the Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on April 21, 2021. Therefore, we vacate our order granting reconsideration and dismiss the Petition.

The parties settled the issues in the Petition for Reconsideration while the matter was pending, leading to dismissal of the Petition and vacating the order granting reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15988541 · 2022-11-10 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision dated September 15, 2022 and issued on September 16, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

The petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by the petitioner, so the petitions were dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14069848 · 2022-09-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2In its prayer for relief, defendant also appears to seek disqualification of WCJ Devine, requesting that the case be reassigned to an "impartial judge." (Petition, p. 8.) Nowhere else in its Petition does defendant discuss or provide the grounds for this request, which, in any event, fails to meet the requirements of Appeals Board Rule 10960, which governs petitions for disqualification of a WCJ. Appeals Board Rule 10960 states:

Defendant failed to file a supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating facts establishing grounds for disqualification, thus dismissal was appropriate.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ11088046 · 2022-07-01 · Long Beach District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner did not submit its bill to the carrier within the statutory 12 month period. The last date of service was 8/13/18 and the bill was first submitted on 8/28/19.

The request for payment was not timely submitted within the statutory 12-month period, and no exception applied because the claim was never found compensable. Therefore, the request is barred under the plain meaning of the statute.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ13749524 · 2021-09-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case while it is pending on reconsideration (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10859, now § 10961 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020)), in order to permit review by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) of the proposed settlement, we will rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought and return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

The Appeals Board rescinded the decision and returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement, as the District Office is precluded from acting while the matter is pending on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →