AIU 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

• Los Angeles 5
• Van Nuys 5
• Oakland 3
• Marina del Rey 2
• San Jose 2
• Anaheim 1
• Lodi 1
• Long Beach 1
• Oxnard 1
• Riverside 1
• San Diego 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.

• 11 for the applicant
• 10 for the defense
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 23 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.

• ADJ15211632 · 2026-06-25 · San Diego District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2026 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that a prior utilization review (UR) decision denying authorization for a requested treatment barred a subsequent request for authorization (RFA) for the same treatment submitted on December 4, 2025. The WCJ further determined that the UR decision issued on December 8, 2025 regarding authorization for a wheelchair accessible hotel room was untimely but that the requested services were not medically necessary.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in concluding the prior UR decision barred the subsequent request and that the December 8, 2025 UR decision was untimely but the requested treatment was medically necessary, warranting reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16112682 · 2026-05-19 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ's opinion found that apportionment was not appropriately addressed per the standards outlined in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 611 (en banc) because the physician did not clearly outline the pre-existing conditions nor did he adequately address with particularity how those conditions caused the current impairment. He accepted the QME's opinion that the impairment to the right and left shoulder should be added instead of combined. The WCJ also found that the correct occupational code is 330 based on the job description provided (Defendant's Exhibit A.)

  The WCJ found that the QME Dr. Hughes did not adequately explain the apportionment of pre-existing conditions to the current impairment as required by Escobedo, and thus rejected the apportionment and rated permanent disability at 76% without apportionment based on Dr. Reiter's opinion.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ17870859 · 2026-04-23 · Lodi District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9Given the above, we find that a QME in the specialty of neurology (MPN) to address the applicant's post-concussion headaches, post-concussion syndrome and closed head injury, as well as any industrial causation of same, is appropriate.

  The WCAB found good cause for an additional neurology panel based on Dr. Chow's recommendation, applicant's symptoms, and the stipulation of treating physician Dr. Lin reporting headaches, despite defendant's objection to industrial causation.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ16034617 · 2025-08-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On November 12, 2024, defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. On January 21, 2025, we denied defendant's petition. (Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration, dated January 21, 2025.) On April 28, 2025, the parties proceeded to trial and framed for decision the issue of "[j]urisdiction of WCJ to determine need for medical care as requested by Dr. Elliott Block as set

  The WCJ properly exercised authority under Labor Code section 4604 to order compliance with a valid UR determination, and the UR determination was final and binding under section 4610.5(f)(1).

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ17084700 · 2025-02-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4In this case, the employer has not met the burden of proof necessary to establish that it

  The employer failed to prove that modified or alternative work was both available and offered to the applicant, thus the applicant was entitled to temporary disability benefits for the period claimed.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16034617 · 2025-01-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3An applicant's right to recover workers' compensation benefits is subject to the conditions set forth in section 3600. Among these is that "the injury is not caused by the intoxication, by alcohol or the unlawful use of a controlled substance, of the injured employee." (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(4).) Intoxication is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof rests on the employer, as the defendant, to establish that affirmative defense. (Lab. Code, § 5705(b).) To carry its burden of proof, a defendant is required to prove each fact supporting its claim by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.) As explained in section 3202.5:

  Defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant was intoxicated at the time of injury or that intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury, based on lack of toxicology evidence, eyewitness testimony, and medical opinion linking intoxication to injury.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ18936354 · 2024-11-26 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order ("F&O") issued on September 17, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") concluded that defendant need not produce a video recording of applicant's injury prior to applicant's deposition. Applicant asserts that the WCJ erred because the video is a video of the alleged incident itself, not sub rosa surveillance, and is therefore properly discoverable prior to her deposition.

  The Appeals Board found that the video footage was not sub rosa surveillance but footage of the incident itself, which must be produced prior to deposition to avoid prejudice to the applicant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16212301 · 2024-10-29 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.18Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, and, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will affirm the F&O, except that we will amend to find that that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to the right ankle, defer the issue of what other parts of the body were injured, defer the issue of whether applicant is entitled to further medical treatment to cure or relieve the effects of injury, and rescind the order that applicant take nothing on his claim; and we will return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The panel found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to the right ankle based on substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Guzman and medical records, outweighing the WCJ's credibility assessment against the applicant's testimony.

  Official decision · page 18 →
• ADJ16280220 · 2024-02-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 21, 2023. By the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain a specific injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on July 7, 2021 to her back, hips, legs, foot, wrist plantar fasciitis, stress, anxiety, psyche, and insomnia.1 As a result, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her claim.

  The WCJ found the applicant did not provide sufficient credible evidence to prove a specific injury on July 7, 2021. The medical reports from Dr. Tsaltskan and Dr. Rodriguez did not reference the injury date or provide substantial evidence. The WCJ's credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence, including contradictory testimony from the defense witness.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15963667 · 2023-10-24 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 2, 2023 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant "did not timely raise the issue of untimely denial of the cumulative trauma [CT] claim during the period of [October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021]" though there was no prejudice to defendant; that defendant's denial of the CT claim during the period October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021 was timely; and that applicant did not suffer injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on October 20, 2021 or during the period of October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing for the claim of injury on October 20, 2021 or during the period of October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021.

  The WCJ found the denial of the cumulative trauma claim timely and no injury arising out of employment during the period, but the Appeals Board found the record unclear and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16212301 · 2022-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, and, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will affirm the F&O, except that we will amend to find that that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to the right ankle, defer the issue of what other parts of the body were injured, defer the issue of whether applicant is entitled to further medical treatment to cure or relieve the effects of injury, and rescind the order that applicant take nothing on his claim; and we will return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The WCAB found that the medical evidence from QME Dr. Guzman, supported by other medical reports, was substantial and credible to establish injury AOE/COE to the right ankle, outweighing the WCJ's adverse credibility finding of the applicant's testimony.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11409207 · 2026-04-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter and served on August 12, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical spine, head, and traumatic brain injury, and claims to have sustained injury to his lumbar spine, thoracic spine, eyes, nose, circulatory system, heart, nervous system, psyche, reproductive system, and endocrine system.

  The WCJ's decision was rescinded and the matter was returned to the WCJ for consideration of the parties' settlement agreement and further proceedings, without ruling on the merits of the petition for reconsideration.

  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.

• AIU INSURANCE COMPANY
• AIU Insurance Company
• AIU INSURANCE
• AIU Insurance
• AIU INSURANCE COMPANY administrated by HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC.
• AIU Insurance Company by Helmsman Management Services, LLC
• AIU INSURANCE NEW YORK

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.