Gallagher Bassett

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 36
• Santa Ana 31
• Oakland 28
• Los Angeles 27
• Oxnard 14
• Anaheim 13
• San Francisco 13
• Marina del Rey 12
• Sacramento 12
• Pomona 10
• San Diego 10
• Bakersfield 7

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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 133 for the defense
• 97 for the applicant
• 39 returned for more record

Counted over 251 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’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 claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ18890787 · 2026-06-15 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7We agree with the WCJ that the second case against Asset Protection is an attempt by applicant to relitigate the issues decided against him with finality in case number ADJ10622598 and as such, the case is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. Furthermore, we agree that this case should be dismissed with prejudice as there is no new evidence in the record to support the contention that applicant should be allowed to proceed against defendants.

  The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that the second case ADJ18890787 is an attempt to relitigate issues decided with finality in ADJ10622598 and is precluded by res judicata, warranting dismissal with prejudice due to no new evidence supporting the claim.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2026-06-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On March 23, 2026, we issued our Decision determining in relevant part that the filing of a workers' compensation claim on applicant's behalf in 2004 did not impart the knowledge required to establish a date of injury under section 5412 and commence the running of the statute of limitations under section 5405. We observed that per applicant's testimony, he had not initiated the 2004 claim and had never spoken to the filing attorney. We also observed that none of the claim filing documents and supporting documentation were signed by applicant and that evidence established that applicant's only involvement with the claim had been to instruct that it be withdrawn after learning of the filing. (Decision, at pp. 9-10.) We noted the first evidence establishing compensable disability arising out of industrial exposures was the May 4, 2021 medical reporting of orthopedic physician Dr. Einbund. We thus identified May 4, 2021 as the section 5412 date of injury, and concluded that because the instant claim was not filed more than one year from the date of injury, compensation was not barred under section 5405. (Id. at p. 11.)

  The WCAB found that the applicant's date of injury was May 4, 2021, based on medical evidence, and that the 2004 claim filing did not establish knowledge of compensable disability to trigger the statute of limitations under section 5405.

• ADJ16112682 · 2026-05-19 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ's opinion found that apportionment was not appropriately addressed per the standards outlined in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 611 (en banc) because the physician did not clearly outline the pre-existing conditions nor did he adequately address with particularity how those conditions caused the current impairment. He accepted the QME's opinion that the impairment to the right and left shoulder should be added instead of combined. The WCJ also found that the correct occupational code is 330 based on the job description provided (Defendant's Exhibit A.)

  The WCJ found that the QME Dr. Hughes did not adequately explain the apportionment of pre-existing conditions to the current impairment as required by Escobedo, and thus rejected the apportionment and rated permanent disability at 76% without apportionment based on Dr. Reiter's opinion.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10642765 · 2026-05-18 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings of Fact that relate to the issue of new and further disability, and substitute a new Order that the issue of whether applicant has sustained new and further disability as alleged in her Petition to Reopen dated April 13, 2021, is deferred.

  The Appeals Board found the evidentiary record insufficient to adjudicate new and further disability and compensable consequence injuries, and thus deferred the issue for further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ20106865 · 2026-05-18 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Not only does the letter not explicitly refer to objection, it does not contain any objection whatsoever. Applicant is entitled to retain the control of the QME process and did nothing to lose that control. Thus, defendant waived its right to an objection.

  Defendant's strike letter did not contain any objection to the QME panel specialty, so defendant waived its right to object; applicant was entitled to choose the specialty and chiropractic was appropriate.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11351201 · 2026-05-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on February 27, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his eyes, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, fingers, legs, ankles, circulatory and excretory system, and psyche and ordered that applicant take nothing on his claims.

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to resolve conflicting medical opinions on industrial causation, including orthopedic, neurological, and psychiatric claims, requiring further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18206391 · 2026-05-04 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.15Here, PQME Dr. McGahan's expert medical opinions are based on inadequate medical history and an incorrect legal theory and therefore are not substantial.

  PQME Dr. McGahan's opinions were not substantial evidence due to inadequate medical history and incorrect legal theory; record requires further development.

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ16306548 · 2026-04-27 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration or removal of the Findings and Order with Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued on January 13, 2026, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as an electrician by Taft Electric Company, per the filed application dated June 16, 2022, applicant claims to have sustained cumulative injury during the period November 12, 2020 through November 12, 2021, to his neck, back, and bilateral feet; (2) the claim was denied by Gallagher Bassett Services, and no benefits have been paid; (3) the NECA/IBEW Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program on its face is a valid ADR program that has been recognized and repeatedly authorized by the Administrative Director (AD) and holds prima facie jurisdiction over applicant's claim, and applicant has not proven that it fails to meet the requirements of Labor Code section 3201.5(b) or violates his right to a fair hearing.

  The WCAB lacks jurisdiction over the claim because the ADR program holds prima facie jurisdiction and the applicant did not seek review of the ADR closure, thus the WCAB cannot hear the claim except as an appeal from the ADR arbitrator's ruling.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13071035 · 2026-04-24 · San Francisco District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Substantial evidence supports my finding of a delay in medical treatment that gave rise to my assessment of penalties under Labor Code section 5814, attorneys' fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 and sanctions in the form of lien claimant's attorneys' fees. Labor Code section 5814 provides for a penalty for the unreasonable delay of compensation. Medical treatment is considered compensation, and a delay in its provision can give rise to a penalty under Labor Code section 5814. (See, Grubb & Ellis v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 807; Paula Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 820.)

  Defendant repeatedly denied payment for authorized medical care, violating Labor Code section 4610.3 and causing delay in compensation under Labor Code section 5814. The delay was egregious and harmed the applicant's medical care and recovery.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ2126841 · 2026-04-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Based on the above discussion, we find no reasonable basis to disturb the WCJ's findings as to the body parts of the left shoulder and chronic pain syndrome based on the well-reasoned Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) report of Jeffrey Berman, M.D., dated June 29, 2017.

  The WCAB found that the issues of injury to the left shoulder and chronic pain syndrome were not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel because they were not decided in prior proceedings and were supported by substantial medical evidence, including the QME report of Dr. Jeffrey Berman.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13594888 · 2026-04-13 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Third Amended Arbitrator's Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on January 30, 2026, by the Ironworkers Workers' Compensation Alternative Dispute Resolution Program arbitrator (WCA).1 The arbitrator found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained an industrial cumulative injury through the period ending on October 1, 2017, to his neck, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral upper extremities, bilateral hands, bilateral wrists, bilateral knees, bilateral feet, bilateral ankles, and psyche. The arbitrator further found that applicant's injury caused applicant to sustain 94% permanent partial disability and that 100% of applicant's disability was industrially caused, without apportionment. The arbitrator found that applicant was amenable to vocational rehabilitation and that he could compete in the open labor market, and thus, applicant failed to rebut the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) and was not permanently totally disabled.

  Applicant's medical evidence and vocational evidence support a finding of permanent total disability, contrary to the arbitrator's original finding of permanent partial disability. The Board found the work restrictions assigned by Dr. Henry to be substantial medical evidence and credited the vocational expert's opinion that applicant cannot compete in the open labor market.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10598940 · 2026-04-10 · Fresno District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12III DISCUSSION I. The WCAB had no jurisdiction and therefore the Medical Unit had no jurisdiction for Gallagher Bassett to request panel # 7404253 on 4/9/21. The board has no jurisdiction over any aspect of a workers' compensation claim until an application for adjudication has been filed. This rule has been codified in Regulation 10450(b). The Medical Unit, which issues QME panels, operates under the authority of the WCAB. Since the WCAB has no jurisdiction until an application is filed, the Medical Unit cannot issue a QME panel without an underlying case that gives the WCAB jurisdiction. In this case, as of 4/9/21 ADJ16413854 did not exist. There was no petition for new and further disability filed in ADJ10598940. No jurisdiction had been established on 4/9/21 to request panel # 7404253. (Labor Code Section 5500, nor Regulation 10450(b).) Therefore, panel # 7404253 is an invalid panel. a. There is no legal basis to argue Panel #7404253 dated 4/9/21 was requested to enforce a stipulated medical award. Future medical awards are enforced pursuant to LC § 4610. Treating physicians submit requests for authorization (RFAs) for medical treatment. The RFAs are then subject to utilization review (UR). b.

  The WCAB lacked jurisdiction to issue QME Panel 7404253 on 4/9/21 because the underlying case ADJ16413854 did not exist at that time, and no petition for new and further disability was filed in ADJ10598940. Therefore, the panel was invalid and Dr. Graham's reports were excluded.

  Official decision · page 12 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 30.

• GALLAGHER BASSETT
• GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES
• GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.
• Gallagher Bassett
• Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.
• Gallagher Bassett Services
• Gallagher Bassett Insurance Services
• GALLAGHER BASSETT SACRAMENTO
• GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INCORPORATED
• GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC
• GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC.
• Gallagher Bassett, Inc.

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 claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.