ESIS, INC.

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 17
• Santa Ana 12
• Van Nuys 12
• Oakland 7
• Anaheim 6
• Long Beach 5
• Riverside 5
• Sacramento 4
• Fresno 3
• San Francisco 3
• Marina del Rey 2
• Oxnard 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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 48 for the defense
• 25 for the applicant
• 12 returned for more record

Counted over 83 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’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 claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ17103616 · 2026-05-22 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 10, 2026. Therein the WCJ found that, while employed as a battery tech and roadside assistant on June 13, 2022, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, and left shoulder. The WCJ further found that "[t]he record needs further development, with a neurologist, as to whether Applicant sustained a compensable injury to the head (characterized as headaches) because of the June 13, 2022, incident." Based on these findings, the WCJ issued the following order:

  The WCJ found the chiropractic QME's opinion on headaches was speculative and not substantial medical evidence, justifying ordering a neurological QME panel; the Appeals Board amended the order to remove language broadly disqualifying chiropractic opinions but affirmed the need for a neurological QME.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1022470 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132adeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the decisions in ADJ3880940 and ADJ4230890, and substitute new decisions that find that CIGA and Desert have joint and several liability and order that Desert is to administer applicant's further medical treatment, and defer the issue of new and further disability in ADJ4230890. We make no other changes to any of the other decisions.

  The Board deferred the issue of new and further disability because the record was inadequate to determine whether the applicant sustained new and further disability and whether a petition to reopen was filed, and CIGA waived the issue by not raising it earlier.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ16859150 · 2025-08-29 · San Francisco District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Applicant's petition for penalties sought sanctions, penalties and attorneys' fees for the same alleged conduct: namely, defendant's failure to pay temporary disability in this case. Penalties under Labor Code section 5814, which apply when payment that is due is either delayed or denied, are an inducement for prompt payment, while sanctions under our Labor Code section 5813 are "designed to protect against litigation abuses, not to remedy or penalize delayed payments of awards." (Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appl. Bd, (2008) 73 Cal. Comp. Cases 1197, 1202.) Bad faith actions or tactics "include actions or tactics that result from a willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation," disrupt or delay proceedings, or that "are done for an improper motive or are indisputably without merit." (Title 8, Cal. Code Reg. section 10421(b).) Applicant has presented no evidence that would support a finding of sanctions.

  Applicant did not present evidence of bad faith or willful failure to comply by defendant to support sanctions or attorneys' fees. WCJ's discretion to deny sanctions and fees was not abused.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10543015 · 2025-06-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8opinions contained within the medical reporting are conclusory and provide no indication for why the QME reached the conclusion that he did. As explained in Vigil, the QME must provide a reasoned analysis to rebut the CVC, and that analysis must constitute substantial medical evidence. Accordingly, the present award of permanent disability is not supported by substantial medical evidence and must be rescinded.

  The QME's opinions on CVC rebuttal, apportionment, and temporary disability were conclusory and not supported by substantial medical evidence. The record does not sufficiently establish the periods of temporary disability, and the apportionment opinions lack adequate explanation. The award is not supported by substantial evidence and must be rescinded.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ7580462 · 2025-03-11 · Oxnard District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, it is undisputed that lien claimant did not file the declaration required by section 4903.05, and thus, its lien was dismissed by operation of law by July 3, 2017. Therefore, lien claimant could not further pursue the lien; the WCAB did not have jurisdiction over lien claimant once the time to challenge the dismissal had elapsed; and trial should not have been set.

  Lien claimant did not file the required declaration under Labor Code section 4903.05, resulting in dismissal of the lien by operation of law; defendant's petition for sanctions is moot as the lien was dismissed and WCAB lacked jurisdiction to proceed.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8627409 · 2025-02-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, AIFSIF's attorneys filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Summit, the administrator, on April 12, 2021. This Notice of Appearance contains no indication that Summit and therefore AIFSIF was appearing specially to contest personal jurisdiction. Strictly speaking, it appears that this conduct was sufficient, standing alone, to waive any objection to personal jurisdiction, despite the attorney's assertion three days later of the personal jurisdiction objection at the first hearing the attorney attended.

  AIFSIF's conduct, including filing a Notice of Appearance without a special appearance and participating in the merits for nearly two years before seeking adjudication, constituted a waiver of personal jurisdiction objection.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ12878263 · 2024-12-23 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found that applicant failed to prove industrial causation of her injury because the WCJ found that applicant's history of injury was not credible.

  The WCJ's finding of lack of industrial causation was based on applicant's history being not credible, but the WCAB found the credibility findings inconsistent and the QME's opinion inadequate due to lack of medical records, thus remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13319375 · 2024-12-20 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 27, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that materials from applicant's third party civil claim, including a November 30, 2022 report of Mechel Henry, M.D., transcript of Dr. Henry's February 21, 2023 deposition, transcript of the October 4, 2023 trial proceedings, and a medical presentation/demonstrative prepared by Dr. Henry, were inadmissible and unable to be submitted to the panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs) for review and comment. The WCJ found that the reporting, testimony, and exhibits were obtained for the sole purpose of contradicting the panel QMEs in the instant case and were not those of a consulting physician, or a treating physician, agreed medical evaluator, or panel QME, as contemplated under Labor Code1 section 4061(i).

  The Appeals Board found that Dr. Henry's materials were not solely retained to rebut QMEs and were relevant medical evidence admissible under Labor Code section 4062.3(a), distinguishing Batten and following Jacobs, thus admissible to be sent to panel QMEs for review and comment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10452116 · 2024-10-07 · Los Angeles District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3We agree with the WCJ that the opinions of Thomas Curtis, M.D., Judith Schwafel, Ph.D., and Gayle Windman, Ph.D., are substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied in finding applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by the industrial injury and thus compensable. It is well-established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with other medical opinions. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].) In order to constitute substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability and it must set forth the reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604, 621.) A medical opinion is not substantial evidence when based on incorrect facts, history or legal theory, or surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess. (Place v. Workers' Comp Appeals Bd. (Place) (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (Escobedo) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found the reports and deposition testimony of Drs. Curtis, Schwafel, and Windman constitute substantial medical evidence establishing compensability of the psychiatric injury as predominantly caused by employment events, rejecting Dr. Cohen's contrary apportionment opinion as vague and unsupported.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14289195 · 2024-09-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. Section 5813(a) provides for sanctions for "bad-faith actions or tactics which are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Lab. Code, § 5813(a).) These include "actions or tactics that result from a willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation, that result from a willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, or that are done for an improper motive or are indisputably without merit." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) Here, as explained further below, we do not agree that applicant's attorney's petition seeking fees pursuant to section 5710 was indisputably without merit or otherwise displayed sanctionable conduct. Sanctions are designed to punish litigation abuses and to provide the court a tool for curbing improper legal tactics and controlling their calendars. (Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 294, 302.) An argument that is unmeritorious is not necessarily frivolous, which can be defined as "not having any serious purpose or value". (See "Frivolous", Google Dictionary, retrieved September 13, 2024, from http://www.google.com.) Section 5710 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

  The WCAB found no sanctionable conduct by applicant's attorney and denied all attorney fees and sanctions requests due to lack of proof of entitlement to additional fees.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13552142 · 2024-07-24 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on May 4, 2021, wherein the WCA found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her back, left arm, left leg and left knee during the period August 26, 2019 through August 26, 2020.

  The record was incomplete and lacked proper evidence and transcript, preventing meaningful review of the post-termination defense issue; thus, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11564195 · 2024-07-08 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCA issued the Report dated December 8, 2021, however, the record does not include the decision that is challenged by applicant. Moreover, the record does not contain any identification of the stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.

  The Appeals Board could not conduct meaningful review or render a decision based on an incomplete record, as the record did not include the challenged decision or identification of stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• ESIS
• ESIS CHATSWORTH
• ESIS, INC.
• ESIS, Inc.
• ESIS RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES
• ESIS WEST WC CLAIMS
• ESIS WEST CLAIMS
• ESIS WC CLAIMS
• ESIS INC.
• ESIS, Inc
• ESIS WEST

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.