CompWest 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

• Anaheim 3
• Los Angeles 3
• Santa Ana 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Fresno 2
• Marina del Rey 2
• Pomona 2
• Oxnard 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Diego 1
• San Francisco 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.

• 9 for the defense
• 8 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 18 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.

• ADJ14029847 · 2026-08-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings and Orders issued on November 2, 2022, by the WCJ is AFFIRMED, EXCEPT THAT Finding of Fact number 2 is AMENDED as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT *** 2. The issue of whether there was good cause for defendant to request a cross- examination of QME Lazar prior to proceeding to trial on April 21, 2022 is moot.

  The issue was found moot because the WCJ vacated submission to develop the record further, allowing additional discovery and cross-examination rights to both parties.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16581671 · 2026-08-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9that an orthopedist should evaluate applicant’s knees with the possible need for surgery. This would indicate that applicant is not at maximum medical improvement at either the time of the report or at the time of the PTP report. Further, though the psyche QME did not conclude that applicant was temporary totally disabled, she also did not find him at MMI. The psyche treater did opine that applicant was temporarily disabled at least through September 2024. Finally, the issue of injury in the form of the venous condition is deferred. Until there is a finding as to the compensability of that condition, the end date for temporary disability is not supported. As such, we will rescind the finding of the period of temporary disability so that the WCJ can make a finding of maximum medical improvement and develop the record for the venous condition.

  The WCAB rescinded the temporary disability period awarded by the WCJ due to lack of MMI finding and deferred the issue pending further development of the venous condition record.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10991851 · 2025-04-03 · Marina del Rey District OfficeStatute of limitationsdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.6In this case, the WCJ did not determine when applicant (1) had knowledge sufficient to establish that she either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that her disability was caused by her employment; and (2) first suffered disability based upon medical evidence indicating when the cumulative effect of her injury ripened into disability. (See Lab. Code, § 5412; see also Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. 221 Cal.App.4th 1116 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1257].

  The WCJ did not make the necessary factual determinations to establish the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury, so the issue was deferred for further development.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17001262 · 2024-12-23 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we find that opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Michael Bronshvag, M.D., to be substantial medical evidence which supports the finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE).

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE based on credible applicant testimony, medical expert opinion of Dr. Bronshvag, and the preponderance of evidence standard favoring the applicant.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14768185 · 2024-06-07 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Labor Code § 3600(a)(10) maintains that an injury is not compensable if a claim is filed after [] notice of termination or layoff and the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of the notice of termination or layoff. There are exceptions to this general rule. Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(D) provides that a cumulative trauma injury with a date of injury subsequent to a date of termination or layoff is a valid exception to the post- termination defense.

  The Board found that the applicant did not have both disability and knowledge of the industrial nature of her injury until after the claim was filed, so the post-termination defense does not apply and the date of injury is February 28, 2022.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ6609179 · 2024-05-16 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on August 2, 2023. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant failed in his "affirmative duty to produce detailed records showing services and dates rendered for the home health care services provided", and thus ordered that applicant take nothing further as reimbursement for such services.

  Applicant failed to produce detailed records for home health care services, leading to denial of reimbursement; however, the matter was returned to WCJ for further proceedings to create a complete record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12758878 · 2024-05-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the February 20, 2024 Findings and Award is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the February 20, 2024 Findings and Award is AFFIRMED except that Finding number 1 is AMENDED as follows: 1. the applicant, while employed during the period between October 25, 2018 to October 25, 2019 as a housekeeper, occupational group number 340 at Los Angeles, California, by SKYLINE HEALTHCARE AND WELLNESS CENTER LLC, whose workers' compensation insurance carrier was COMP WEST sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right and left shoulder, right and left wrist, and right and left knee.

  The Board amended the injury findings to include additional body parts based on the QME's medical reports, finding industrial injury to multiple body parts beyond those originally found by the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12973629 · 2024-03-11 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Having reviewed the trial record, we agree with the WCJ that there are several inconsistencies in the information provided to the various doctors whose reports were admitted into evidence. Also, the job duties described by the doctors are quite inconsistent with those identified in the Usual and Customary Job Description. (Def. Exh. F.)2 Based thereon, we cannot determine the accuracy of the doctors' reports that were admitted into evidence, and in turn the reports are not substantial evidence.

  The WCAB found inconsistencies in applicant's history, job duties, and medical reports, concluding the record lacked substantial evidence to support the WCJ's denial of injury AOE/COE, warranting further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11143930 · 2023-09-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The September 7, 2022 Independent Medical Review determination of the administrative director clearly asserts as its rational the statement that Dr. Rothi's June 30, 2022 RFA was for "home health aide assistance four hours a day, two days a week for six months for bathing, house mobility, and hygiene (failed back surgery, bilateral knee, bilateral shoulder pain) quantity in months #6". (Exhibit 16, IMR Determination, dated September 7, 2022, page 2). The rationale continued on page 3 indicating that "the request is for six months of continuous home healthcare without evaluating for compliance and the continued need for these services." This is factually incorrect. Dr. Rothi's June 30, 2022 RFA makes no mention of six months. It requests home health assistance for "4 hours a day, X 2 days a week PRN". Furthermore Dr. Rothi's accompanying PR- 2 report clearly indicates a follow-up appointment scheduled for August 10, 2022. (See applicant's Exhibit 21, PR-2 reports by Dr. Rothi up through September 20, 2022, pages 8 through 11). On this basis it is clear that the determination of the administrative director was the result of a plainly

  The IMR determination incorrectly stated that Dr. Rothi's June 30, 2022 RFA was for six months of continuous home healthcare, when in fact the RFA made no mention of six months and the PR-2 report indicated a follow-up appointment was scheduled for August 10, 2022. This was a plainly erroneous finding of fact, not subject to expert opinion.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11091794 · 2022-07-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3This WCJ accepts that the proofs of service regarding the UR denials, with the exception of one, do appear to have been mailed to applicant's counsel. However, that does not meet the requirement of Labor Code section 4610.... [A] UR decision not only must be timely made; it must be timely communicated. A UR decision that is not timely communicated is of no use and defeats the legislative intent of a UR "process that balances the interests of speed and accuracy, emphasizing the quick resolution of treatment requests... " (Sandhagen, supra, 44 Cal. 4th at p. 241.). Thus, section 4610... imposes further mandatory time requirements for communicating a UR decision. These time limits run from the date the UR decision is made, even if the UR decision is made in less than the five days allowed...

  The WCJ and the panel found that the Utilization Review (UR) determinations of Dr. Patterson's May 17, 2021 RFA were untimely because the UR decisions were not timely communicated to the applicant or the applicant's primary treating physician as required by Labor Code section 4610, supported by evidence including emails and letters from applicant's counsel showing lack of receipt of UR denials.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ20012953 · 2026-08-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 20, 2026 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner, leading to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19196196 · 2026-06-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Furthermore, violating section 5502 violates the parties' right to due process to be notified of the issues upon which a trial is set. Accordingly, we find that defendant's right to due process has been violated by setting the matter for trial without completing a PTCS on the day of the hearing and without the WCJ reviewing the PTCS with the parties. As to the issue of the adjuster's testimony, upon return the WCJ may accept defendant's petition for removal as a petition to have the adjuster testify remotely. The WCJ may create a record and decide the request. (Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal. Comp. Cases 830, 838, (Appeals Board en banc).) Accordingly, we grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will order this matter to procced to an MSC so that the WCJ may review the PTCS with the parties. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Removal from the Minutes of Hearing issued on April 9, 2026, by the WCJ is GRANTED.

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant's right to due process was violated by setting the matter for trial without completing a pre-trial conference statement on the day of the hearing and without the WCJ reviewing the statement with the parties, thus granting removal was necessary to avoid substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  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.

• COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY
• CompWest Insurance Company
• COMPWEST NEWPORT BEACH
• COMPWEST
• COMPWEST NEWPORT

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.