California WCABInsurance carrier
Mid-century Insurance Company
Mid-century Insurance Company is named as an insurance carrier in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Permanent disability rating (2) and Apportionment (1). Defense most often ran through Law Offices of Scott C. Stratman (2). The employer appearing most often is Better Living So. Cal Group Corp. (1). The office that heard the most of them is Stockton.
- Decisions
- 12
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 8
- District offices
- 8
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
14 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
- Better Living So. Cal Group Corp.1
- Comprehensive Pain Center1
- Magunssen Tire Pros1
- Second Nature1
- Yard Creations Landscape Services, INC.1
- Yce, INC.1
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 11 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’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 insurance carrier is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.
- ADJ12294911 · 2025-04-14 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8Here, the record shows that applicant sustained a mental disorder which causes disability or need for treatment which was diagnosed under the proper criteria and was substantially caused by applicant's suspension and termination. (Joint Ex. 1, PQME report of Zara Ashikyan, Ph.D., dated September 16, 2021, pp. 34-39.) The WCJ's finding that applicant did not sustain injury on the grounds that it could not have resulted from actual events of employment is thus without support. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 3-4.) After all, applicant's suspension and termination constitute actual events of employment. Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her psyche.
The Appeals Board found that applicant sustained a mental disorder causing disability diagnosed under proper criteria and that the injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment including suspension and termination, contrary to the WCJ's prior finding.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ1413052 · 2024-11-12 · Stockton District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Applicant also contests the Award of temporary disability. Finding of Fact No. 13 provides for temporary disability from February 22, 2017 through March 1, 2019. Applicant's Petition avers Dr. Fine placed applicant on temporary disability from March, 2019, through February, 2022. (Petition, at p. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision notes, however, that the evidentiary record only documents temporary disability through the March 1, 2019 report of Frank Fine, D.C. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 5.) We note that applicant's Petition offers no citation to the evidentiary record that establishes additional periods of temporary disability. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(b) ["every petition and answer shall support its evidentiary statements by specific references to the record"].) Following our independent review of the record, however, we do not identify any additional periods of temporary disability supported by competent medical evidence, and we do not disturb the WCJ's findings with respect to temporary disability.
The record did not support additional periods of temporary disability beyond March 1, 2019, as no competent medical evidence was cited for later periods.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ2400606 · 2024-07-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsremanded
Determinative passage · p.6We conclude that the WCJ must revisit the issue of average weekly earnings and specify which provisions of section 4453(c) she wishes to rely upon to determine the issue, including, as appropriate, case law relevant to the four methods of determining the issue described in subdivision (c). If the WCJ finds it appropriate to consider applicant's earning capacity pursuant to subparagraph (4) of section 4453(c), she should further develop the record as deemed necessary to determine that issue. (Telles Transport, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1164 (66 Cal.Comp.Cases 1290) [Board may not leave undeveloped matters which its acquired specialized knowledge should identify as requiring further evidence].) We also conclude that the WCJ must include room and board in determining applicant's earnings, pursuant to Labor Code section 4454. This is further discussed below.
The WCJ must revisit and specify the method for determining average weekly earnings, including room and board as remuneration, as the prior finding was not sufficiently developed or specified.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ12924233 · 2023-10-17 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Turning to the issue of joinder, we note that the joinder of parties pursuant to WCAB Rule 103822 is permissive rather than mandatory, as evidenced by the word "may." It serves judicial economy to join all parties "whose presence is necessary for the full adjudication of the case," and such joinder should be accomplished to the extent that it is possible. However, despite the passage of a significant amount of time and effort and several hearings, such joinder has not occurred in these cases. The WCJ did not cite nor did we find any authority for the notion that applicant is the
The WCJ and Appeals Board found no authority obligating the applicant to secure joinder of necessary parties; the employment issue against the joined insured employer may proceed while joinder of other parties is deferred.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ1413052 · 2021-08-02 · Stockton District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed
Determinative passage · p.5Regarding the report from QME Dr. Hutchinson: a medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories or examinations, on incorrect legal theories, or on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess, and the medical opinion must set forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions; a mere legal conclusion does not furnish a basis for a finding. (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]; Granado v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399, [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).)
The reports from QME Dr. Hutchinson were found not to be substantial evidence due to inadequate medical history, outdated facts, and failure to address all relevant injury claims, leading to deferral of permanent disability and apportionment issues for further development.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ8227110 · 2024-02-20 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration1 and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate only to the extent set forth in the attachment to this opinion, and the Opinion on Decision, which we adopt incorporate in its entirety, we will deny reconsideration.
The Petition for Reconsideration was denied because the Board found the prior Findings and Order protecting the Applicant's Award was appropriate and that suspending payment was not justified.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ9979523 · 2021-05-07 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The Petition for Reconsideration filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Accordingly, it is subject to dismissal.
The petition failed to state grounds for reconsideration or cite with specificity to the record, making it subject to dismissal as skeletal.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ2001868 · 2021-04-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2The Petition for Reconsideration filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Accordingly, it is subject to dismissal.
The petition for reconsideration failed to state grounds or cite the record with specificity, making it skeletal and subject to dismissal under Labor Code 5902 and WCAB Rules 10945 and 10972.
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.
- MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY
- Mid-Century Insurance Company
- MID-CENTURY INSURANCE CO.
- Mid Century 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 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.