Omaha National Underwriters

What they litigate

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

• Medical treatment / UR / IMR3
• Substantial evidence / credibility1
• Liens1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 3
• Los Angeles 2
• Oakland 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Fresno 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Pomona 1
• Redding 1
• San Bernardino 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.

• 7 for the defense
• 4 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 13 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.

• ADJ16505110 · 2026-04-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9§ 9795.3(b)(2) applies in this matter and find that cost petitioner is entitled to the greater of market rate or county superior court rate under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1). In this matter, we find that translating a C&R is most similar to appearing at an appeals board hearing which falls under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1). Interpreter fees shall be billed and paid at the greater of the following (i) at the rate for one-half day or one full day as set forth in the Superior Court fee schedule for interpreters in the county where the service was provided, or (ii) at the

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ18040257 · 2025-12-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The undersigned issued a Findings of Fact and Orders on 9/8/2025 finding that the selection made by Applicant on 6/23/2025 to use CNS as his primary treating physician was valid in that CNS was part of the carrier's MPN at the time of selection.

  The WCJ found and the Appeals Board upheld that the applicant validly selected CNS as his PTP from the carrier's MPN on 6/23/2025, when CNS was still on the MPN. The defendant's removal of CNS from the MPN after that date does not retroactively invalidate the selection or deny treatment.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17425906 · 2025-09-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1LRA Interpreters, Inc., (cost petitioner) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 12, 2025, and amended on June 19, 2025 for a scrivener's error, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: the June 7, 2023 date of service for the interpretation of the compromise and release (C&R) falls under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(2) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9795.3(b)(2))1 and cost petitioner was adequately compensated by defendant; the June 6, 2024 date of service for deposition preparation does not fall under AD Rule 9795.3(7)(b)(1), but under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(2); cost petitioner did not meet its burden in establishing market rate; the existing certification of the interpreter is deemed insufficient; and the billing is deemed satisfied.

  The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review whether interpreter services for deposition preparation and C&R reading were properly compensated, whether the interpreter was qualified, and whether the market rate was established. The final decision is deferred pending further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17686288 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. With respect to the assertion by petitioner that the WCJ's Award "far exceeds" the treatment recommendations of the request for authorization (RFA) from applicant's primary treating physician, Vibhay Prasad, M.D. (Petition, p. 8.), the WCJ's Award provides for "further and ongoing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills." Such Award is supported by the Findings of Fact, numbered paragraph 4, which states, "Applicant requires further and continuing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills," which is in turn justified by the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Significant Panel Decision). Further, in addition to the reasons set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe that petitioner's reliance on the case of Allied Signal Aero. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wiggs) (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1077 [84 Cal.Comp.Cases 367] in support of the assertion that the Appeals Board has no jurisdiction to review the medical necessity and reasonableness of home health care is misplaced. Wiggs does not negate the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v.

  The WCAB panel found that the WCJ had jurisdiction to order continuing treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills despite a timely utilization review denial, relying on the Patterson line of cases and rejecting the defendant's jurisdiction argument based on the timely RFA denial. The panel also found insufficient substantial medical evidence to discontinue treatment, crediting the treating physician Dr. Prasad's recommendations over the utilization review physician Dr. Gart's denial.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14723091 · 2024-07-08 · Fresno District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) of April 22, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that Dr. Klassen's medical reporting constituted substantial evidence. Applicant contends that Dr. Klassen's reporting did not constitute substantial medical evidence.

  The Appeals Board found it unclear whether Dr. Klassen's reports constitute substantial evidence and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1218145 · 2026-02-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the general allegation that the WCJ is biased.

  The petition for disqualification was denied because the applicant did not establish the technical requirements for disqualification, but the Appeals Board granted removal of the case to ensure substantial justice and expedite proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20916819 · 2026-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ has a conflict of interest. Thereafter the WCJ recused herself from these proceedings and the matter was reset before another WCJ. As the WCJ has recused herself, no issue exists regarding disqualification and the petition will be dismissed as moot. To conserve court resources, the Appeals Board would respectfully request that parties seek to withdraw moot petitions as a matter of courtesy.

  The WCJ recused herself, rendering the disqualification petition moot.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18352965 · 2025-11-06 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2II. 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(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, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner. Thus, had the Petition been timely, we would have denied it on the merits for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report.

  Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ20858483 · 2025-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Removal of the order of continuance issued by the WCJ on May 29, 2025, is DISMISSED.

  The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot because the parties agreed to a joint continuance with a discovery plan, rendering the issue no longer live.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ14297412 · 2025-09-29 · Pomona District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Pursuant to Labor Code section 4603.2(b)(1)(A), a provider of services provided pursuant to Section 4600, including but not limited to interpreters, shall submit its request for payment with an itemization of services provided and the charge for each service, a copy of all reports showing the services performed, the prescription or referral from the primary treating physician if the services were performed by a person other than the primary treating physician, and any evidence of authorization for the services that may have been received. The request for payment with an itemization of services provided and the charge for each service shall be submitted to the employer within 12 months of the date of service or within 12 months of the date of discharge for inpatient facility services. (Lab. Code, § 4603.2(b)(1)(B).)

  The Appeals Board found that the interpreting service was not provided in the context of medical treatment or medical-legal examination, so the 12-month billing requirement under Labor Code section 4603.2(b) did not apply, and thus the petitioner's bill was not barred as untimely.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ18067229 · 2025-07-10 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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, and for the additional reasons given below, we will deny reconsideration.

  The WCAB panel found that the defendant did not meet the burden of proof to show a change in applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify discontinuing ongoing home health care, and thus denied the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17140347 · 2025-05-15 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on removal, the parties entered into a Compromise & Release. Therefore, the Petition for Removal in response to the decision issued on June 26, 2024 is moot, and it will be dismissed.

  The parties entered into a Compromise & Release while the Petition for Removal was pending, rendering the petition moot.

  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.

• Omaha National Underwriters
• Omaha National
• OMAHA NATIONAL
• OMAHA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• Omaha National Underwriters, LLC
• Omaha National Insurance Company
• OMAHA NATIONAL UNDERWRITERS
• OMAHA NATIONAL UNDERWRITER
• Omaha National Group, Inc.
• Omaha National Insurance
• OMAHA NATIONAL GROUP

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.