What the panel ordered
The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order except it amended the order to find Zurich's petition for contribution untimely as to temporary disability indemnity and medical treatment with Dr. Immerman from the February 16, 2016 Stipulations and Award.
Petition for reconsideration filed by Hampshire Insurance Company challenging the timeliness of Zurich America's petition for contribution.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The petition for contribution was timely except as to temporary disability indemnity and medical treatment with Dr. Immerman from the February 16, 2016 Stipulations and Award, based on the case law requiring petitions within one year of the award.
From the decision · page 1Defendant Hampshire Insurance Company seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 2, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that defendant Zurich America Insurance Company's petition for contribution was timely, except as to the award of temporary disability benefits in the Stipulation and Award of February 16, 2016.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Zurich's petition for contribution was timely as to all benefits except temporary disability indemnity and medical treatment with Dr. Immerman from the February 16, 2016 Stipulations and Award.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact determined the partial timeliness outcome of the petition for contribution.
From the decision · page 21. Zurich America Insurance Company's petition for contribution is timely as to benefits except the temporary disability indemnity and the medical treatment with Dr. Immerman awarded as a result of the February 16, 2016 Stipulations and Award.
The stipulation and award of February 16, 2016, specifically noted that the agreement was not construed as an award of temporary disability necessitating a petition to terminate TD.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This limited the scope of the award and affected the timeliness of the petition for contribution.
From the decision · page 5On February 16, 2016, there was an Expedited Hearing set on the issues of temporary disability and medical treatment. At that hearing, applicant elected against Zurich, and applicant and Zurich entered into Stipulation and Award and/or Order in which Zurich accepted liability AOE/COE for bilateral upper extremities for the CT period of 9/2/14- 7/20/15. Zurich further agreed to commence TTD from 7/20/15 through the date of the Expedited Hearing, and continuing, with the Stipulation specifically noting that the agreement was not construed by the parties to be an Award of TD necessitating a Petition to Terminate TD. While Zurich did reserve its rights to seek contribution, all other issues were deferred. No trial was conducted, and no Findings of Fact was issued.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Medical treatment with Dr. Immerman was awarded in the February 16, 2016 Stipulations and Award but the petition for contribution was found untimely as to this treatment.
The petition for contribution was untimely as to medical treatment with Dr. Immerman based on the language of the stipulation and case law.
From the decision · page 1Defendant Hampshire Insurance Company seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 2, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that defendant Zurich America Insurance Company's petition for contribution was timely, except as to the award of temporary disability benefits in the Stipulation and Award of February 16, 2016.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Rex Club v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. 53 Cal. App. 4th 1465
A petition for contribution must be filed within one year of the award of benefits.
The court applied this standard to determine the timeliness of Zurich's petition for contribution.
From the decision · page 5An award of benefits is to the Applicant for specific benefits agreed to by the parties or found by a Judge. This does not begin when a final award is issued but on the date of any award of compensation benefits. Rex Club v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. 53 Cal. App. 4th 1465.1469.
The Hartford v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. Fremont Compensation Ins. Co. 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 1292
All carriers must reserve contributions in workers' compensation cases.
The court cited this case to support the requirement for reserving contributions.
From the decision · page 3My review of the case law indicated all carriers had to reserve contributions. The Hartford v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd., Fremont Compensation Ins. Co., 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 1292 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. July 24, 1997)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The stipulation and award of February 16, 2016, specifically noted that the agreement was not construed as an award of temporary disability necessitating a petition to terminate TD.
From the decision · page 5On February 16, 2016, there was an Expedited Hearing set on the issues of temporary disability and medical treatment. At that hearing, applicant elected against Zurich, and applicant and Zurich entered into Stipulation and Award and/or Order in which Zurich accepted liability AOE/COE for bilateral upper extremities for the CT period of 9/2/14- 7/20/15. Zurich further agreed to commence TTD from 7/20/15 through the date of the Expedited Hearing, and continuing, with the Stipulation specifically noting that the agreement was not construed by the parties to be an Award of TD necessitating a Petition to Terminate TD. While Zurich did reserve its rights to seek contribution, all other issues were deferred. No trial was conducted, and no Findings of Fact was issued.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.