California WCABClaims administrator

Guard Insurance

Guard Insurance is named as a claims administrator in 10 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2) and Penalties under Labor Code §5814 (2). Defense most often ran through Albert and Mackenzie (2). The employer appearing most often is California Safety Agency (1). The office that heard the most of them is Pomona.

Decisions: 10
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 9
District offices: 8

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator 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

California Safety Agency1
Colony Palms Operations, LLC1
Fine Home Health, INC.1
Industrial Electric Company1
KT Auto Transport1
Logistics Dubois Corporation1
M and O Edwards, INC.1
Third Cancun Juice1
Virtu USA1

Where they appear

Pomona 2
Van Nuys 2
Anaheim 1
Fresno 1
Long Beach 1
Los Angeles 1
Riverside 1
Santa Ana 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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

5 for the applicant
4 for the defense
1 returned for more record

Counted over 10 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ11186589 · 2026-06-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Ameri Chiropractic (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order (F&O) of May 10, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, arm, wrist, and back pursuant to the prior Findings & Order of April 12, 2019; that lien claimant is not entitled to any payments pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5402(c) as it failed to establish when the claim form was supplied to the employer by applicant or when the employer had knowledge of the injury alleged herein from any other source; that the services provided by lien claimant were self-procured medical expenses and defendant is not liable for reimbursement of those expenses; that lien claimant failed to establish any basis for reimbursement of the lien claim; and there is no basis to award costs to defendant or impose sanctions on lien claimant.
The WCJ and the Board found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the evidence and prior Findings and Order.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17085228 · 2026-02-02 · Pomona District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Here, as explained above, applicant and/or their attorney were not required to attend the lien conference. Hence, one of the bases for the NIT, the alleged failure to appear, was legally incorrect rendering the NIT void. Because the NIT is void, the Order is void, and we will rescind it.
Applicant's attorney was not required to appear at the lien conference under WCAB rules, so the basis for sanctions was legally incorrect and the order was void.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ11420360 · 2025-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4There was no itemization of just how much time this service took or where it took place. The Cost Petition was tried on 11/25/2024. The undersigned issued a Findings of Fact on 12/10/2024 dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction in that the Cost Petitioner never requested a second bill review as set forth in sec. 4602(b)(2).
The WCJ and Appeals Board found no jurisdiction over the Cost Petition because the petitioner failed to comply with the required second bill review request within 90 days and did not meet the procedural requirements, leading to dismissal of the petition.
Official decision · page 4 →
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 →
ADJ10725201 · 2021-04-01 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 28, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her thoracolumbar spine, right shoulder, right elbow, right forearm/upper extremity in the form of radial tunnel syndrome, right wrist/hand in the form of carpal tunnel syndrome, and both knees; that applicant did not sustain injury to her left elbow; that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period from December 1, 2016, through February 9, 2018; that the injury caused 31% permanent disability; that applicant will require further medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of her injury; and that defendant unreasonably failed to pay temporary disability and permanent disability benefits, entitling applicant to a penalty on both benefits, pursuant to Labor Code section 5814.
The WCJ found 31% permanent disability caused by the injury based on Dr. Geiger's impairment rating and medical evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12703817 · 2026-06-05 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5III. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(a).) Here, for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and the Report, defendant failed to establish any substantial prejudice or irreparable harm resulting from the WCJ's orders regarding discovery. The sole dispute is the proper rate of payment, and cost petitioner is attempting to obtain information from defendant to establish the market rate. The WCJ ordered defendant to produce documentation to establish its market rate for its translation services and to produce a witness for deposition regarding the market rate for the geographic region.
Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the discovery orders; the orders were relevant and necessary for establishing market rates for interpreter services; defendant's arguments were deemed frivolous and for delay.
Official decision · page 5 →
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 →
ADJ13094475 · 2022-04-04 · Fresno District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
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, § 10961), 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 returned the matter to the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement because the District Office is precluded from acting while the case is pending on reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

GUARD INSURANCE
GUARD INSURANCE COMPANIES
GUARD INSURANCE COMPANY
GUARD INSURANCE CO.
Guard Insurance

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.

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 →

Guard Insurance

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

4 for the defense

1 returned for more record

Counted over 10 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ11186589 · 2026-06-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Ameri Chiropractic (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order (F&O) of May 10, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, arm, wrist, and back pursuant to the prior Findings & Order of April 12, 2019; that lien claimant is not entitled to any payments pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5402(c) as it failed to establish when the claim form was supplied to the employer by applicant or when the employer had knowledge of the injury alleged herein from any other source; that the services provided by lien claimant were self-procured medical expenses and defendant is not liable for reimbursement of those expenses; that lien claimant failed to establish any basis for reimbursement of the lien claim; and there is no basis to award costs to defendant or impose sanctions on lien claimant.

The WCJ and the Board found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the evidence and prior Findings and Order.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17085228 · 2026-02-02 · Pomona District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Here, as explained above, applicant and/or their attorney were not required to attend the lien conference. Hence, one of the bases for the NIT, the alleged failure to appear, was legally incorrect rendering the NIT void. Because the NIT is void, the Order is void, and we will rescind it.

Applicant's attorney was not required to appear at the lien conference under WCAB rules, so the basis for sanctions was legally incorrect and the order was void.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ11420360 · 2025-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4There was no itemization of just how much time this service took or where it took place. The Cost Petition was tried on 11/25/2024. The undersigned issued a Findings of Fact on 12/10/2024 dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction in that the Cost Petitioner never requested a second bill review as set forth in sec. 4602(b)(2).

The WCJ and Appeals Board found no jurisdiction over the Cost Petition because the petitioner failed to comply with the required second bill review request within 90 days and did not meet the procedural requirements, leading to dismissal of the petition.

Official decision · page 4 →

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 →

ADJ10725201 · 2021-04-01 · Anaheim District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 28, 2021, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her thoracolumbar spine, right shoulder, right elbow, right forearm/upper extremity in the form of radial tunnel syndrome, right wrist/hand in the form of carpal tunnel syndrome, and both knees; that applicant did not sustain injury to her left elbow; that applicant was temporarily totally disabled for the period from December 1, 2016, through February 9, 2018; that the injury caused 31% permanent disability; that applicant will require further medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of her injury; and that defendant unreasonably failed to pay temporary disability and permanent disability benefits, entitling applicant to a penalty on both benefits, pursuant to Labor Code section 5814.

The WCJ found 31% permanent disability caused by the injury based on Dr. Geiger's impairment rating and medical evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12703817 · 2026-06-05 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5III. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(a).) Here, for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and the Report, defendant failed to establish any substantial prejudice or irreparable harm resulting from the WCJ's orders regarding discovery. The sole dispute is the proper rate of payment, and cost petitioner is attempting to obtain information from defendant to establish the market rate. The WCJ ordered defendant to produce documentation to establish its market rate for its translation services and to produce a witness for deposition regarding the market rate for the geographic region.

Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the discovery orders; the orders were relevant and necessary for establishing market rates for interpreter services; defendant's arguments were deemed frivolous and for delay.

Official decision · page 5 →

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 →

ADJ13094475 · 2022-04-04 · Fresno District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

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, § 10961), 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 returned the matter to the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement because the District Office is precluded from acting while the case is pending on reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →