Republic Underwriters 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 5
• San Francisco 3
• Los Angeles 2
• Oakland 2
• San Bernardino 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Salinas 1
• San Diego 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.

• 10 for the defense
• 5 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 18 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.

• ADJ9195893 · 2026-04-01 · San Diego District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Both applicant and defendant seek reconsideration of the Findings & Award (F&A) issued on October 21, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed as a plumber on April 23, 2012, sustained industrial injury to his back, right foot and psyche resulting in 100% permanent disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18880902 · 2024-11-01 · Oakland District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In any event, these are the undisputed facts before us: 1) on July 25, 2024, defendant stipulated that it will adjust, negotiate, or litigate any timely filed lien; 2) the parties stipulated that no liens were known as of July 25, 2024, when they signed the settlement documents; 3) no lien was filed when the OACR issued on July 26, 2024; 4) per the OACR, the WCJ found that there were no liens of record; and 5) DCSS filed a lien on August 5, 2024, pursuant to section 4903(e). Based on the foregoing, the lien filed on August 5, 2024, is defendant's responsibility per Paragraph 8 of the C&R. To the extent that defendant and DCSS are unable to adjust or negotiate the lien at issue, either party may file a Declaration of Readiness now that the case-in-chief has been resolved.

  The C&R stipulated that defendant would adjust, negotiate, or litigate any timely filed lien, and no lien was of record at the time of the OACR. The DCSS lien was filed after the OACR, so it is defendant's responsibility per the C&R, not grounds to set aside the OACR.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8147459 · 2024-09-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Turning to the merits of this case, the WCJ denied Dr. Moshfegh's lien because Dr. Moshfegh's report chronicles a specific injury that occurred on March 27, 2011, a date of injury that was not claimed in this matter. "The purported 3/27/11 event has never been pled, nor is it part of the present litigation." (Report, p. 3.) The WCJ points out that the only claim at trial was an alleged specific injury of May 26, 2011. (Report, p. 1.) However, a WCJ is not limited to the issues presented on the pleadings. (Lab. Code, § 5702.) A WCJ has the authority to amend the pleadings to conform to proof. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10517.) In other words, having different dates of injuries in the Application for Adjudication and in Dr. Moshfegh's report is not fatal. For that reason, we grant reconsideration, rescind the July 2, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  The WCJ initially found no injury arising out of employment due to unpled injury date, but the Appeals Board held that the WCJ can amend pleadings to conform to proof and remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12396719 · 2024-06-24 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.3We take no position on the ultimate resolution of any of these issues. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order of April 16, 2024 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings of Fact and Order of April 16, 2024 is RESCINDED and that the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:

  The issue of entitlement to a new panel in neurology was deferred to the WCJ for initial ruling.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10630370 · 2023-12-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4DISCUSSION We first note, it has long been the law that once reconsideration has been granted, the Appeals Board has the authority to address issues all issues, including those not specifically raised by the Petition. (Lab. Code, § 5906; (Great Western Power Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Savercool) (1923) 191 Cal. 724, 729 [10 I.A.C. 322]); (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (George) (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 201, 203 [19 Cal.Comp.Cases 98]; Pasquotto v. Hayward Lumber (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 223, 229 - 230, fn. 7 (Appeals Board en banc).) In this matter, the Finding that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE was based on the reporting and deposition testimony of AME Dr. Sanossian. (See Opinion on Decision, p. 6.) Any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v.

  The WCAB found that the AME Dr. Sanossian's opinion that workplace stress was less than 1% cause of the stroke was based on assumptions and lacked objective evidence, thus not substantial evidence. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further develop the record on causation.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10179447 · 2023-06-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Defendant Baron HR, LLC, has filed a timely and properly verified petition for reconsideration arbitrator's Findings and Order re Coverage dated March 28, 2023. The arbitrator offers the following Report and Recommendation in response thereto.

  Petitioner Baron HR, LLC failed to prove insurance coverage under the Hartford/Bison Data Systems policy and failed to provide evidence of coverage for Countrywide Payroll, resulting in denial of coverage and affirming uninsured status.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ2024623 · 2022-05-24 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Award of May 21, 2019, the Presiding Workers' Compensation Judge ("PWCJ") found that applicant, while employed as a human resources/payroll employee by Cardinale Automotive Group on July 11, 1995 (ADJ4652674, insurer Republic Indemnity Company) and on January 15, 1996 (ADJ2024623, insurer Allianz Insurance Company), sustained industrial injury to her right knee per the Amended Findings and Award of February 2, 2005, and that in ADJ2024623, applicant sustained industrial injury to her left knee, psyche and complex regional pain syndrome ("CRPS"), causing permanent disability of 100% under the 1978 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities. In his Opinion on Decision, the PWCJ also found that "apportionment [of permanent disability] is 100% to the injury of January 5, 1996 in ADJ2024623MF based upon the opinion of Dr. Brose [pain specialist]," and that "[a]lthough the issue of [Labor Code section 3208.3(d)] is largely moot for permanent disability purposes...applicant did sustain a compensable psychiatric injury based [on her] credible testimony that she worked for over six months."1

  The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the diagnosis of CRPS and causation by the 01/05/96 injury, but rescinded and deferred the permanent disability finding in ADJ2024623 for further development due to insufficient evidence on permanent disability rating and apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10834249 · 2022-05-09 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3This matter proceeded to trial on December 22, 2021. At trial the parties stipulated that the applicant age 62 on the alleged date of injury, while employed during the period April 12, 2016, through April 12, 2017, as a laborer, Occupational Group Number 360, at Tarzana, California, by Country Fresh Herbs, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his lumbar spine, neck, shoulders, knees, feet, and thoracic spine. The parties also stipulated that Applicant was employed by Country Fresh Herbs from 1995 to December 20, 2020 and that PQME Silverman found that the Applicant's entire period of employment was injurious. At the time of injury, the employer's workers' compensation carriers were Republic Underwriters for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016; Falls Lake Insurance Company for the period January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017; and Preferred Professional Insurance Company for the period January 1, 2018, through December 20, 2020. The sole issue presented for determination was the date of injury pursuant to Labor Code § 5412 and Labor Code § 5500.5, with Republic Underwriters contending that the liability period pursuant to Labor Code § 5500.5 is after its last date of coverage.

  The WCJ found that the date of injury for cumulative trauma was September 12, 2017, based on the presence of permanent disability and applicant's knowledge of the disability caused by employment on that date, supported by Dr. Silverman's evaluation and reports.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10077484 · 2022-04-27 · Bakersfield District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the allegations in the Petition, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report from page 3 to page 15, line 3, which we adopt and incorporate by this reference thereto, and for the reasons discussed below, we will affirm the F&A except that we will amend the F&A to defer the issues of whether the treatment that Spine and Orthopedic Center provided applicant was necessary and appropriate medical treatment to cure or relieve her from the effects of her cumulative injury. (Finding of Fact 7). Based thereon, we will amend the Award and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The WCAB deferred the issue of whether the treatment provided by Spine and Orthopedic Center was necessary and appropriate medical treatment because the Board lacks medical expertise to determine consistency with MTUS and Labor Code section 4604.5, and recommended further proceedings to address this issue.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• 2002spd-1 · 2002-07-10Jurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.120 judge (WCJ) correctly dismissed the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) as a party

  The WCJ dismissed CIGA prematurely before determining the date of injury or period of injurious exposure, which are threshold issues that must be decided before dismissing CIGA. The Board rescinded the dismissal orders and returned the matters for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2001929 · 2026-01-20 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal and reconsideration of the order of continuance issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) on October 9, 2025.

  The WCJ's order is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration is dismissed; removal is denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10800715 · 2025-12-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the order under review was interlocutory and not final, thus the petition was improper as it did not address a substantive right or threshold issue.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY
• REPUBLIC INDEMNITY
• REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY
• Republic Underwriters Insurance Company
• Republic Indemnity
• REPUBLIC INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
• REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE
• Republic Indemnity Co.
• Republic Underwriters

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.