Cypress 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

• Oakland 15
• Los Angeles 7
• Van Nuys 6
• Oxnard 5
• Anaheim 4
• San Diego 4
• San Francisco 4
• Santa Ana 4
• Long Beach 3
• Bakersfield 2
• Fresno 2
• Pomona 2

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.

• 32 for the defense
• 22 for the applicant
• 13 returned for more record

Counted over 65 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.

• ADJ13042541 · 2026-05-18 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent total disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 13, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine, cervical spine, thoracic spine, right ankle, right hip, right foot, right toes, complex regional pain syndrome, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists and right leg resulting in permanent total disability.

  The WCJ found permanent total disability based on substantial evidence including the QME's opinion that disabilities should be added rather than combined. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the record due to incomplete development and statutory time constraints.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12418883 · 2026-05-07 · Bakersfield District OfficePsyche AOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, as explained below, because Dr. Kesselman's opinions are not clear with respect to the date of injury, the medical evidence is not sufficient to support that applicant sustained an industrial injury. Nevertheless, we must emphasize that when a WCJ determines that an employee did not sustain an industrial injury to psyche, there is no compensation owed, and there is no need to analyze whether compensation is barred by good faith personnel actions. Here however, once the record is further developed with respect to the medical evidence, if it is sufficient to support that applicant's claimed injury to psyche was industrially caused, defendant will have to meet its burden to show that compensation is barred.

  The WCAB found that the medical evidence from Dr. Kesselman was not sufficient to establish the date and causation of the psychiatric injury as industrial, requiring further development of the record by the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17764448 · 2026-02-13 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1A workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued a Findings and Orders in this matter served on December 15, 2025. In the decision, it was found that applicant's claim that while employed on July 13, 2022, as an HVAC technician, he sustained industrial injury to his neck, back and "body systems, specifically stress and anxiety" was barred by the Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) post-termination defense, which states, in pertinent part:

  The WCJ found the claim barred by the post-termination defense because the employer lacked notice of injury prior to termination; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record and analyze notice of injury under relevant precedent.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11777176 · 2026-02-11 · Stockton District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the services of lien claimant, Dental Trauma Center, were reasonable and necessary and awarded lien claimant the balance of its lien with penalties and interest.

  The Board found the lien claimant's services reasonable and necessary, rejecting defendant's argument that diagnostic testing required separate utilization review authorization, and affirmed the WCJ's award of the lien balance with penalties and interest.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11930717 · 2025-10-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued on February 19, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which denied applicant's request for an additional qualified medical evaluator (QME) in internal medicine.

  Applicant showed good cause for an additional QME panel in internal medicine because the current QME stated the claim of injury (diabetes) is outside their expertise, constituting substantial prejudice and irreparable harm if removal was not granted.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15777619 · 2025-10-13 · Anaheim District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5This matter was proceeded to trial on the applicant's designation of Boomerang Medical Group as the applicant has elected PTP, see Joint. Exh. X1, and defendant's contention that the group is not within the defendant's MPN and applicant must treat within the MPN.

  Defendant failed to provide evidence of valid MPN notices or medical treatment within the MPN, resulting in an adverse inference of neglect or refusal to treat, allowing applicant to treat outside the MPN.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16728100 · 2025-10-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Cost petitioner contends, in pertinent part, that the discovery issues remain relevant and that defendant engaged in bad faith actions by unreasonably delaying payment.

  The Cost Petitioner failed to prove bad faith by the defendants, which is required to impose sanctions and attorney fees under Labor Code section 5813 and CCR section 10545(h). The defendants paid the requested amount and a self-imposed penalty, and no evidence of unreasonable delay or bad faith was presented.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12790054 · 2025-08-11 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Applicant's Petition raises as issues apportionment and applicant's ability to compete in the open labor market. Applicant contends the WCJ made a finding that applicant is unable to compete in the open labor market and that applicant's vocational expert, P. Steve Ramirez, supports such a finding.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ's apportionment and vocational disability findings lacked substantial evidence and analysis, warranting reconsideration for full review of permanent disability, apportionment, and vocational issues.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14930871 · 2025-05-29 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7We are unable to conduct meaningful review of the Petition or render a decision based on an incomplete record. Thus, we cannot consider the merits of the decision. Accordingly, we grant the Petition for Reconsideration, and as our decision after reconsideration, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return the matter to the trial level. When the WCA issues a new decision, any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking a proper transcript, making meaningful review impossible, so it rescinded the prior Findings and Order and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11644994 · 2024-11-22 · San Bernardino District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5*** Based on the evidence as a whole, the undersigned finds Citywide has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the copying services at Glendale Eye Medical Group, Concentra Urgent Care and Loma Linda University Medical Group were done to prove or disprove a contested component of applicant's claim.

  The WCJ found that the cost petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the copy services were done to prove or disprove a contested component of the claim, and that the claim was not contested at the time the services were performed. The WCAB granted reconsideration but deferred final decision pending further review.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15556399 · 2024-08-26 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 10, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant is entitled to an unapportioned permanent disability award of 27%.

  The WCJ's 27% permanent disability rating under DRE III with a 2% pain add-on was supported by substantial medical evidence, particularly the well-reasoned report of Dr. Kaisler-the applicant. The apportionment opinions by Dr. Klassen were found conclusory and not substantial evidence under Escobedo, so no apportionment was applied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10884845 · 2024-06-21 · Bakersfield District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6II. Applicant also claims that the April 20, 2023 discovery order as to a new QME panel in psychiatry was vague. The order instructs applicant's attorney to provide the discovery order to the Administrative Director' Medical Unit within thirty days of its finality. (4/20/23 FA&O, p. 9.) Applicant did not request a QME panel in psychiatry within the time limit specified in the order. When applicant thereafter requested the panel, defendant objected to the request and filed a DOR requesting an Expedited Hearing to obtain a finding that the panel request was invalid. The disputed issue of the validity of the QME panel was heard at the trial on March 14, 2024. On April 2, 2024, the WCJ ordered the QME panel #3397632 invalidated; denied defendant's petition for a stay of an examination with Dr. Michael Hoffman; and allowed applicant and defendant thirty days from the date of these Orders to discuss the potential use of an AME in the field of psychiatry, or, in the absence of agreement, permit either party to request the Administrative Director's Medical Unit issue a QME panel in the field of psychiatry. (4/2/24 F&O, pp.

  The petition was denied because the applicant failed to timely comply with the discovery order to request a QME panel in psychiatry, rendering the panel invalid.

  Official decision · page 6 →

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.

• CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY
• Cypress Insurance Company
• CYPRESS INSURANCE
• Cypress Insurance
• CYPRESS INSURANCE CO.
• Cypress Insurance Company by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies
• CYPRESS INSURANCE CO. by BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESATE COMPANIES
• CYPRESS INSURANCE adjusted by BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY
• CYPRESS INSURANCE care of BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY
• Cypress Ins. Company
• CYPRESS INS. CO.
• CYPRESS INS

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.