Safety National Casualty Corporation

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 7
• San Francisco 6
• Oakland 5
• San Diego 4
• Anaheim 2
• Marina del Rey 2
• San Jose 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Fresno 1
• Lodi 1
• Long Beach 1
• 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.

• 20 for the applicant
• 16 for the defense
• 5 returned for more record

Counted over 40 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.

• ADJ18928997 · 2025-12-22 · Lodi District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8On reconsideration, defendant does not challenge the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE to the right knee. Upon the finding of industrial causation, an award of possible future medical treatment is appropriate and no specific modalities of treatment are being awarded. Although treaters, Dr. Ramesh and NP Janz-Navarro, discharged applicant from care on March 5, 2024, Dr. Pettegrew subsequently indicated on April 24, 2024 that applicant should continue physical therapy and therapy sessions for group strength would also be appropriate, thereafter applicant could "follow up as needed." (Id. at p. 8.) This is a treater's indication for future medical treatment. Additionally, Dr. Vincent indicated over-the-counter NSAIDs and pain medication, conservative home care for ongoing management can continue; this is the medical-legal expert's indication for future medical treatment.

  The WCJ found a need for further medical treatment based on the QME's opinion and medical records indicating ongoing treatment needs, which the Appeals Board affirmed.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ14926383 · 2025-12-19 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on October 6, 2025 wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) held, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant as a janitor on July 24, 2020, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the lumbar spine and right shoulder resulting in a 78% permanent disability, plus a life pension thereafter, per the opinions of Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Nathan Morello, D.C.

  The WCJ and WCAB found substantial medical evidence from Dr. Morello supporting injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine and right shoulder.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18492736 · 2025-09-30 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.92007 to November 9, 2023, as a cashier, occupational group number: 214, at Los Angeles, California by Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., insured by Safety National Casualty Corporation, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her left hand. 2. The issue of injury to other body parts is deferred pending further development of the record.

  The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting injury to the left hand only, deferring other body parts due to incomplete medical evidence and the need for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ11110973 · 2025-05-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeSJDB voucherdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 15, 2023 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to an additional payment from the Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) because applicant received an earlier RTWSP in connection with a prior injury after the date of the instant injury from which applicant is claiming RTWSP benefits. Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent RTWSP payment "except where the individual receives a [Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB)] Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302(b).)

  The Board found that Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second RTWSP payment unless the individual receives a subsequent SJDB Voucher for a later injury, and the applicant did not meet this requirement. The Board also held that the applicant's remedy to challenge the regulation's validity lies in Superior Court, not the Appeals Board.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13713694 · 2025-05-09 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 3, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE), while employed on May 10, 2020, in the form of COVID-19 infection pursuant to the Labor Code section1 3212.86 presumption and that defendant failed to meet their burden of proof to rebut the presumption.

  The WCJ found the applicant sustained injury arising out of employment under the COVID-19 presumption; defendant challenged the presumption's applicability due to its repeal; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the legal and factual issues before final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19203396 · 2025-01-21 · San Jose District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the November 1, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant, while employed by defendant as a customer service rep, sustained an August 29, 2023 (ADJ19457849) injury arising out of and arising in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the left wrist and left knee and claims to have sustained injury to various other body parts; and that during period from January 1, 2020 through February 15, 2024 (ADJ19203396), sustained injury AOE/COE to the face, neck, upper extremities, back, and lower extremities. The WCJ also found defendant's orthopedic panel 7705125 to be valid and applicant's chiropractic panel 7694889 to be invalid.

  The Appeals Board found that the applicant's use of the specific injury claim number to request a chiropractic QME panel was valid because both the specific and cumulative injury claims were filed before the evaluation, and the same QME should evaluate both claims. The Board emphasized substance over form and rejected the defendant's argument that the incorrect claim number invalidated the panel request.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19352869 · 2024-12-30 · San Francisco District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal in response to the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 4, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel number 7705175 is valid.

  The WCJ's finding that the QME panel number 7705175 is valid was not an abuse of discretion; service of the delay notice on applicant rather than her attorney was proper and did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm; reconsideration was an adequate remedy; therefore, removal was denied and reconsideration petition was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14328080 · 2024-10-16 · San Diego District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In the instant case, defendant failed to serve applicant with a copy of the letter indicating defendant's intention to seek dismissal of the claim in contravention to WCAB Rule 10550(b). Defendant served only applicant's attorney and American Claims Management. As indicated by the WCJ, failure to serve notice to applicant not only makes defendant's Petition to Dismiss defective, but "violates applicant's right to due process." (Report, p. 3.)

  Defendant failed to serve applicant with the required notice under WCAB Rule 10550(b), making the Petition to Dismiss defective and violating applicant's due process rights. Additionally, the cases were reactivated for hearing, restarting the one-year period for dismissal under Rule 10550(a), rendering the issue moot.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9728181 · 2024-05-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Thus, the WCJ erred in finding that the Compromise and Release agreement barred a finding for further medical treatment to the left knee under the circumstances of this case. While applicant may have had a left knee condition that was alleged to be industrial but not included as compensable in the 2018 settlement, the medical reporting of primary treating physician orthopedist Tomas Saucedo, M.D. states that, years after the settlement, favoring of the stipulated right knee injury contributed to the need for left knee treatment. (November 10, 2021 report at p. 1 ["However as a result of favoring his right knee he has notably increased pain and discomfort to his left knee and at this time indicates that his left knee pain has become more pronounced and

  The WCAB found that the Compromise and Release agreement did not bar medical treatment for the left knee because the right knee injury caused a need for left knee treatment, which is reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of the injury.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11167605 · 2024-04-09 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 9, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not rebut the Combined Values Chart (CVC) in the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS), and that her bi-lateral hands and wrists injury caused 89% permanent partial disability.

  The Appeals Board found that Dr. Feinberg's opinions were not substantial evidence because they lacked detailed explanation and did not consider surveillance videos, thus requiring further development of the record and a new decision by the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11167605 · 2023-10-30 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 9, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not rebut the Combined Values Chart (CVC) in the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS), and that her bi-lateral hands and wrists injury caused 89% permanent partial disability.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because Dr. Feinberg's opinions require further detailed explanation and consideration of surveillance evidence to determine the accurate permanent disability rating and apportionment, particularly whether the factors of disability should be added rather than combined.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14380906 · 2023-09-15 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 30, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his right shoulder, that the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury is October 15, 2020, that applicant was notified of the October 12, 2020 termination of his employment with defendant on October 8, 2020; and that applicant's injury claim is not barred by the Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D) post-termination defense.1

  The WCJ found substantial evidence that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his right shoulder and that the date of injury was October 15, 2020, which is after the termination notice date, thus the claim is not barred by the post-termination defense.

  Official decision · page 1 →

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.

• SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION
• Safety National Casualty Corporation
• SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
• Safety National Insurance Corporation
• Safety National Corporation

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.