Specialty Risk Services

What they litigate

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

• Apportionment1
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Liens1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• San Diego 1
• San Jose 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 insurance carrier does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 3 for the defense
• 1 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ6711342 · 2026-02-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2On 11/5/2025, this Court issued the Findings, Award and Orders and Opinion on Decision. This Court found, as indicated above, that Applicant did not sustain dental injury as alleged, the services provided by lien claimant, Dental Trauma Center, were not reasonable nor necessary, there was basis to award any additional reimbursement for the lien claim of Dental Trauma Center, the services provided

  The WCJ found no dental injury and denied reimbursement to Dental Trauma Center but awarded Sleep Treatment Clinics reimbursement; the WCAB granted reconsideration due to due process concerns and ordered further review and mediation.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ1715757 · 2024-09-16 · San Diego District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Applicant's vocational expert, Alejandro Calderon opined that the applicant's ability to compete in the open labor market continues to be "entirely eroded from an orthopedic perspective and chronic severe chronic pain symptomology, limited physical tolerances and stamina, and that her amenability to Vocational Rehabilitation Services for employment at this time remains non- feasible. (App. Ex. 5, December 2, 2021, pages 1, 2, 15, 17, 19 point 4, 21 most of page, page 22 (no apportionment to non-industrial causation; App. Ex. 6 June 9, 2023, pages 6-7 (Response)). Since his opinions are based on the reports of Dr. Thompson and Dr. Bernicker, and is limited to her limitations due to pain and the orthopedic injuries for which there is no apportionment, the applicant has met her burden on the issue of vocational feasibility.

  The applicant's vocational expert's opinion, supported by medical reports, was found substantial evidence showing vocational non-feasibility due to orthopedic injuries and pain, while the defense vocational expert's reports were not substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ7613459 · 2013-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.122 We hold: (1) a claim for medical-legal expenses may not be filed as a petition for costs under

  The Appeals Board held that medical-legal expenses cannot be sought through a petition for costs under section 5811 because there is a separate statutory scheme for medical-legal expenses and allowing such petitions would circumvent the lien activation fee requirement.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• 2004-sp3 · 2004-10-04 · San Jose District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.27 controlled by former Labor Code section 4645(d), and that defendant's appeal in this case was

  The Appeals Board concluded that the timeliness of an appeal from the Rehabilitation Unit for an injury before January 1, 2004, is controlled by former Labor Code section 4645(d), and that the defendant's appeal filed on August 5, 2003 was timely.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13254752 · 2021-10-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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.

  The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  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.

• SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES
• AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE SERVICE
• NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
• Specialty Risk Services

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.