Pacific Employers Insurance/ace

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 3
• Van Nuys 2
• Los Angeles 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.

• 4 for the applicant
• 2 for the defense

Counted over 6 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.

• ADJ8750673 · 2024-11-19 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, though his attorneys Shehzad Ahmad and California Law Associates, seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order issued on August 19, 2024, wherein it was found in pertinent part that applicant's attorney is not entitled to reimbursement for costs incurred for the services of an expert opinion regarding circuit board manufacturing and chemicals used in the construction of multilayer printed circuit boards because at the time it was incurred it was not reasonable and/or necessary.

  The Appeals Board found that the expert was qualified and the costs were reasonable and necessary due to the lack of sufficient MSDS from Polyclad Laminates, making the expert's report essential for the medical record development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13208164 · 2024-04-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on January 19, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed from June 1, 1987, through October 1, 2002, as a professional baseball player, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, neck, legs, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, back, knees, ankles, feet, toes, and injury in the form of sleep and nervous system while employed by the Los Angeles Dodgers from June 3, 1987, to October 15, 1993; the Seattle Mariners from February 18, 1994 to May 13, 1995; the Montreal Expos from May 17, 1995 to October 15, 1996; the Philadelphia Phillies from November 21, 1996 to September 30, 1998; the Pittsburgh Pirates from February 16, 1999 to April 5, 2000; and the Mexican League from 2000 to 2002. The WCJ found that applicant's claim is barred by section 3600.5, subdivision (d), and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's initial denial based on section 3600.5(d) was premature and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record, deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2275429 · 2025-03-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Finally, WCAB Rule 10960 provides that "if the worker's compensation judge assigned to hear the matter and the grounds for disqualification are known," a petition for disqualification "shall be filed not more than 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.) Here, lien claimant seeks disqualification in response to actions by the WCJ that took place in 2021, several years after the ten-day period specified in WCAB Rule 10960 elapsed. Thus, the Petition for Disqualification must be dismissed.

  The petition for disqualification was dismissed because it was filed after the 10-day deadline and failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish disqualification.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8750673 · 2025-02-11 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Following their participation in a commissioners' settlement conference set at our request, the parties resolved applicant's attorney's claim for medical-legal costs against defendants, the sole issue raised in this reconsideration, by stipulation. The stipulation was filed on January 24, 2025.

  The parties resolved the sole issue of attorney's medical-legal costs by stipulation, which the Board approved, leading to rescission of the prior WCJ order.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11018186 · 2024-04-11 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Here, applicant and SCIF have previously selected Alan Sanders, M.D., as the AME in orthopedic medicine. However, the parties agree that AME Dr. Sanders is no longer available for additional reporting or cross-examination. The WCJ's May 19, 2023 Order states that "[b]ased on good cause found to strike the AME reports of Dr. Alan Sanders, who is unavailable for further reporting or cross-examination, and such further reporting is necessary for a complete record and in the interests of due process, SUBMISSION OF THE CASE IS HEREBY VACATED for purposes of development of the record." (Order Vacating Submission, dated May 19, 2023.)

  The Appeals Board granted removal because the AME Dr. Sanders was unavailable for further reporting or cross-examination, but the reports remain in evidence to provide relevant information for adjudication; the case submission was vacated for further record development.

  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.

• PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY
• PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY/ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
• Pacific Employers Insurance/ACE

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.