Enstar Administrators

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

• AOE/COE1
• Liens1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Anaheim 1
• Pomona 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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 5 for the defense

Counted over 5 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ7919429 · 2022-08-26 · Pomona District OfficeLiensmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien Claimant, California Imaging Solutions petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on March 23, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ found that a contested claim did not exist at the time lien claimant's copy services were incurred under Labor Code Section 4620 and that its medical- legal services were not reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred pursuant to Labor Code Section 4621. The WCJ further ordered that the lien claimant take nothing on their lien.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2199336 · 2021-03-09 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, acting in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings Awards & Orders (F&A) issued by the WCJ on October 20, 2020, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in pertinent part that while employed by defendant as a driver/furniture mover, applicant: (1) sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his lumbar spine and psyche, during the period from October 9, 1999, through September 21, 2004, but did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his upper or lower extremities, and that the injury caused 21% permanent disability (ADJ2199336); (2) sustained injury AOE/COE to his lumbar spine and psyche, on October 8, 1999, but did

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and psyche but not to other body parts claimed by applicant; the WCAB upheld this finding based on substantial evidence from AME Dr. Green and QME Dr. Jacks.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11997989 · 2023-03-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings and Order on September 6, 2022. Based on the authority cited, above, applicant had until Monday, October 3, 2022 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 11, 2023 is untimely and subject to dismissal.

  The Petition for Reconsideration was filed after the statutory deadline and was a successive petition without new grounds; the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider untimely or successive petitions unless the party is newly aggrieved.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ6672465 · 2022-12-23 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ issued the Joint Findings and Order on September 6, 2022. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Monday, October 3, 2022 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on October 24, 2022 was untimely and must be dismissed.

  The petition for reconsideration was filed after the 25-day statutory period and is therefore untimely; the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider it.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ14228796 · 2022-09-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of defendant'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 defendant.

  The Appeals Board denied removal because defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13354508 · 2021-09-09 · Van Nuys 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 for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• ENSTAR ADMINISTRATORS
• ENSTAR US
• ENSTAR U.S., INC.
• ENSTAR (US) INC.

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 claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.