Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 8
• Anaheim 6
• Los Angeles 5
• Oakland 5
• Long Beach 2
• Riverside 2
• Sacramento 2
• Salinas 2
• San Diego 2
• San Francisco 2
• Los Angeles Office 1
• Marina del Rey 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.

• 20 for the defense
• 15 for the applicant
• 9 returned for more record

Counted over 42 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.

• ADJ11235520 · 2026-06-22 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Defendant relies on a UR request for additional information dated June 6, 2022, to support application of the extended timeframe under section 4610(j)(2). However, the determinative question is not merely the date appearing on the document, but whether the request was actually and immediately communicated to the treating physician and the employee within the statutory timeframe.

  The record did not establish whether defendant timely and properly communicated the June 6, 2022 request for additional information, creating an evidentiary gap preventing determination of timeliness of the June 10, 2022 UR denial. The case was remanded for further evidentiary development to resolve this issue.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12792074 · 2026-04-27 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 23, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained 57% permanent disability, after apportionment, for injuries to his right arm, right wrist, left wrist, left hip, and psyche. The WCJ also found that the "violent act" exception applied under Labor Code section1 4660.1 and that applicant did not rebut the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) with vocational evidence.

  The WCJ found 57% permanent disability after apportionment but did not find that applicant rebutted the PDRS with vocational evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed, particularly regarding vocational and medical evidence, and granted reconsideration for further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12142181 · 2026-03-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On December 10, 2021, the WCJ issued her decision, determining in relevant part that applicant did not sustain his evidentiary burden of establishing injury AOE/COE occurring on February 20, 2019. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) In the accompanying Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that medical records in evidence from applicant's treating physician Dr. Fisher indicated an initial visit date of February 14, 2019, and that applicant testified that he had seen Dr. Fisher on the day following the specific injury. The WCJ observed that this date was inconsistent with the date provided by applicant to subsequent evaluating physicians. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 3-4.) The WCJ observed that payroll records demonstrate that applicant was not working on February 13, 2019, which would have been the day preceding his initial visit with Dr. Fisher. Because the history applicant provided to his evaluating physicians regarding the date of injury was not consistent with his trial testimony, the WCJ concluded that applicant had not met his

  The Board found the WCJ's credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence, including inconsistencies in applicant's testimony and medical and payroll records, and thus affirmed the denial of injury AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10405282 · 2026-02-26 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5In Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 30I] (Appeals Board en banc) (Nunes I), we held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, but that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment."

  The Board found that the vocational evidence did not meet the standards for substantial evidence to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating and that further development of the record was necessary to properly adjudicate the issues of permanent disability and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11938023 · 2026-01-05 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) of September 30, 2025, and the Amended Findings and Order (Amended F&O) of October 10, 2025. In the F&O of September 30, 2025, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant while employed by defendant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right ankle, right foot, bilateral writs, tailbone/coccyx, claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE to her left ankle, bilateral knees, psyche, heart, and stroke/brain; and that applicant is entitled to panels in the fields of cardiovascular disease and psychiatry. Following an October 7, 2025 letter from applicant's attorney requesting the WCJ's decision be corrected to order panels in psychology and cardiovascular, rather than psychiatry and cardiovascular, the WCJ issued the Amended F&O. Therein, the WCJ corrected the Order to specify a panel in psychology rather than psychiatry, but did not amend Findings of Fact number three (3) to reflect the change in specialty from psychiatry to psychology.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to amend the Findings of Fact to specify the correct panels in cardiovascular disease and psychology, affirming the WCJ's decision otherwise.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16041060 · 2025-12-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4A. Defendant seeks to have us read section 4610 as providing that the time to complete UR does not start until a body part dispute is resolved and applicant resends the original or new RFA to defendant. We decline to do so. As relevant here, section 4610 provides "[u]tilization review of a treatment recommendation shall not be required while the employer is disputing liability for injury or treatment of the condition for which treatment is recommended pursuant to Section 4062." (Lab. Code § 4610(l).) Further: (m) If utilization review is deferred pursuant to subdivision (l), and it is finally determined that the employer is liable for treatment of the condition for which treatment is recommended, the time for the employer to conduct retrospective utilization review in accordance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) shall begin on the date the determination of the employer's liability becomes final, and the time for the employer to conduct prospective utilization review shall commence from the date of the employer's receipt of a treatment recommendation after the determination of the employer's liability.

  The Appeals Board found the utilization review decision untimely because the time to conduct utilization review commenced on the date liability was determined (May 7, 2025), and the defendant issued the decision on May 15, 2025, exceeding the five business day limit.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ3869833 · 2025-12-22 · Riverside District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Petitioner contends that the WCALJ erred in finding that van repairs are medical treatment. The undersigned disagrees and finds plenty of support in the case law for the proposition that this is a form of medical treatment that can be awarded under the provisions of the Labor Code.

  The Board found that repairs to a handicapped modified van are medical treatment under Labor Code 4600 and that the evidence supported reimbursement as reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of the injury.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ17821210 · 2025-08-29 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7An expedited hearing was held before WCJ Hursh on 3/19/2025. The WCJ determined that the medical evidence set forth in the peer review reports failed to demonstrate any significant change in condition. The rehabilitation program was ongoing treatment having been instigated since January, 2024. Hence the WCJ invoked the rule of Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 CCC 910. He invalidated the UR Determination indicating that the Petitioner could not unilaterally discontinue previously authorized ongoing care without a showing of a significant change of condition. He invoked the Appeals Board's jurisdiction to find that the treatment requested was reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the Applicant of the effects of the injury and ordered the Defendant to provide same.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found that defendants failed to show a material change in circumstances to justify a new utilization review for ongoing brain injury rehabilitation care, thus the prior authorization remains valid and the treatment must continue.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10107934 · 2025-02-21 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant Express Interpreters ("EI") seeks reconsideration of the Order Dismissing Express Interpreters Lien ("Order Dismissing") issued on November 27, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") dismissed EI's lien based upon its failure to appear at an August 19, 2024 status conference. EI asserts that the WCJ erred because its representative, Lee Caballero, was not served with the Notice of Intention ("NOI") to dismiss the lien or the notice of hearing, and therefore its due process rights were violated by the dismissal.

  The failure to serve the lien representative with the Notice of Intention to dismiss lien violated due process rights, rendering the dismissal invalid.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11314069 · 2024-11-12 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 20, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on June 19, 2017 as a roofer by defendant Luke Roofing, Inc., sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his brain, head, lumbar spine, chest, thoracic cavity, right rib, cardiovascular system (in the form of hypertension), vestibular system, respiratory system, auditory system (in the form of tinnitus), visual system (in the form of light sensitivity and low vision), and psychiatric system, but did not sustain an industrial injury to his cervical spine and endocrine system (in the form of diabetes).

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11418472 · 2024-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In case number ADJ11418472, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed by defendant on December 7, 2017, as a warehouse worker/loader, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right elbow; that she was permanent and stationary on August 20, 2018; that she was entitled to future medical treatment; and that the injury did not cause permanent disability. In case number ADJ11418473, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant while employed by defendant during the period July 26, 2017 to July 26, 2018, sustained injury AOE/COE to her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, hips and knees; that she was entitled to future medical treatment; and that she is "entitled to a permanent disability award (after apportionment) of sixty two percent (67%)."

  The WCJ found the injury to the right elbow arose out of and in the course of employment based on the evidence presented.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16513831 · 2024-09-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we amend the Findings of Fact to find that applicant sustained injury to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, right hand, right shoulder, right knee, and left ankle and that defendant was insured by Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies. We defer the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to his left shoulder, left knee and nose, and otherwise affirm the Findings of Fact.

  The WCJ found the applicant credible and relied on QME Dr. Oechsel's medical opinion, which was based on reasonable medical probability and an adequate examination, to find injury to specified body parts arising out of employment. The Board deferred injury findings for left shoulder, left hand, and nose due to lack of medical evidence.

  Official decision · page 5 →

Also recorded as

The same insurance carrier is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 13.

• REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
• Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company
• REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
• REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
• REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY
• REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY
• REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES
• REDWOOD FIRE and CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
• Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance Company
• Redwood Fire Casualty Insurance Company
• REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
• REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INS. CO.

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.