Federal 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

• Van Nuys 8
• Anaheim 3
• Santa Ana 3
• Fresno 2
• Los Angeles 2
• Pomona 2
• Sacramento 2
• San Diego 2
• San Francisco 2
• Marina del Rey 1
• Oakland 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.

• 17 for the defense
• 8 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 26 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.

• ADJ20106865 · 2026-05-18 · Pomona District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Not only does the letter not explicitly refer to objection, it does not contain any objection whatsoever. Applicant is entitled to retain the control of the QME process and did nothing to lose that control. Thus, defendant waived its right to an objection.

  Defendant's strike letter did not contain any objection to the QME panel specialty, so defendant waived its right to object; applicant was entitled to choose the specialty and chiropractic was appropriate.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16197947 · 2026-01-26 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant JD2 Incorporated, insured by Federal Insurance Company c/o Gallagher Bassett (defendant), petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued and served by the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on September 24, 2024. In that decision, the WCA found that applicant, while employed as an ironworker from June [16]1, 2020 to June 16, 2021, sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, elbow and wrists, with the issue of injury to his respiratory system deferred. The WCA further found applicant's knowledge and first date of disability of his cumulative trauma pursuant to Labor Code2 section 5412 was June 17, 2021. Finally, the WCA found and awarded applicant temporary total disability (TTD) for the period June 17, 2021 through June 15, 2023, at a rate to be adjusted by the parties.

  The WCAB found the WCA erred in determining the date of injury and the evidence did not support the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17834281 · 2025-11-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The undersigned issued a Finding & Order (F&O) in which it was found that Applicant's injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment because it fell within the "going and coming" rule. applicant (Petitioner) timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration. Petitioner contends that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact and that the findings of fact do not support the order. The undersigned recommends that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied.

  The injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment because it was barred by the going and coming rule, with no applicable exceptions met by the applicant.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ1405392 · 2025-05-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8On March 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated March 15, 2025, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Findings of Fact, Award & Order dated February 25, 2025. The Defendant contends that the undersigned WCJ erred in admitting the neuropsychological consultative reports of Fernando Gonzalez, Ph.D., dated June 1, 2023 and October 16, 2024. In addition, the Defendant contends that Dr. Gonzalez's reporting failed to constitute substantial medical evidence, including, but not limited to, his alleged lack of competence, the substance of his opinions, and his adding versus using the combined values chart Table 13-8 impairment rating in the AMA Guides and global assessment of function score to achieve permanent total disability. Finally, the Defendant contends that Labor Code § 4660.1(c) bars any psychiatric permanent disability for the Applicant's injury.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found that Dr. Gonzalez's consultative medical reports were properly admitted and constituted substantial medical evidence based on adequate examination, history, and reasonable medical probability.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ10172107 · 2024-07-15 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of April 25, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed by the Zoological Society of San Diego during a cumulative period ending January 1, 1997, applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of myeloma. It was found that the sole carrier insuring the employer during the Labor Code section 5500.5 liability period was Fremont Insurance Company. On July 2, 2003, Fremont went into liquidation, and CIGA took over its California claims. CIGA is an entity created by statute in 1969 to create a fund from which insureds can seek recourse if their insurer becomes insolvent. CIGA is not an insurance company, but is required to pay statutorily defined covered claims. (Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 548, 556-557 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 1661].) In the instant case, it was found that CIGA was solely liable for any benefits due to the applicant as a result of the industrial injury.

  The WCJ's finding that the period of injurious exposure was from January 1, 1996 to January 1, 1997 was supported by credible testimony of the applicant, a co-employee's declaration, and medical expert opinions, which the WCAB adopted and affirmed on reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12473312 · 2024-03-19 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2374); that applicant testified he worked for the same employer as a carpenter for seven years without back pain limitation, but within five days of twisting his back when a piece of wood slipped from his grasp and he fell and sustained the compensable right knee injury, a pre-existing but asymptomatic spinal cyst ruptured causing spinal cord hemorrhage and paralysis; that the neurologic agreed medical evaluator (AME) Wayne Anderson, M.D., testified that although he retained a reasonable doubt about the mechanism that caused the spinal cord hemorrhage, he would find some industrial causation if the WCJ determined that reasonable doubt were to be resolved in applicant's favor; that no substantial evidence was presented to establish an alternative mechanism of the spinal cord hemorrhage; and, that the WCJ erred when determining compensability by placing a mistaken burden on applicant to establish "precise causation" of the mechanism of the spinal cord hemorrhage.

  The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial evidence to establish industrial causation of the spinal cord hemorrhage and paralysis, relying on the agreed medical evaluator Dr. Anderson's opinion that causation was not more likely than not, despite reasonable doubt and timing coincidence.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11226322 · 2022-07-05 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award1 of April 13, 2022, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain compensable industrial injury to her back, hands, hips, neck, face, legs and to her psyche while employed as an office manager during a cumulative period ending on March 31, 2017. The WCJ thus issued an order that applicant take nothing on account of her workers' compensation claim.

  The WCJ found the applicant's testimony not credible and relied on defendant's credible testimony, rejecting the medical opinion due to inadequate history, thus no substantial evidence of industrial causation was established.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8763377 · 2022-04-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration1 of the July 17, 2018 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that there was no subject- matter jurisdiction over the Seattle Mariners ("Mariners"), and that applicant cannot recover against the Miami Marlins ("Marlins") based upon the reciprocity provisions of former Labor Code section 3600.5(b).2 Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding reciprocity under section 3600.5(b), because Florida's reciprocity statute was not in effect at the time of his employment with the Marlins, and also that the WCJ should have admitted medical records submitted after the Mandatory Settlement Conference ("MSC").3

  The WCAB found that the reciprocity provision under section 3600.5(b) did not bar applicant's claim because Florida's reciprocity statute was not in effect during applicant's employment period, and applicant had a significant nexus to California through regular employment there.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10729883 · 2022-04-08 · Anaheim District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the February 4, 2019 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a professional hockey player from 2012 through 2016, claimed to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to multiple body parts, including but not limited to orthopedic, head, neck, spine, hips, upper and lower extremities, neurological, internal, eyes and ears. The WCJ found that applicant had not met the burden of proving a contract for hire was made within California, and as a result, that the court was without jurisdiction over applicant's claim pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5. (F&O, Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the applicant did not meet the burden of proving a contract for hire was made in California, either directly or through his agent, based on the contract execution locations and the agent's lack of authority to bind the applicant without prior written consent.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12897344 · 2022-03-07 · Fresno District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5A. Substantiality Petitioner avers the findings are not justified by the evidence, contending Dr. Oehlschlaeger opinions do not constitute substantial medical evidence. Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories. (Heggin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Ed. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169) Medical opinion also fails to support the Board's findings if it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. (Id.) Petitioner contends Dr. Oehlschlaeger opinion that there exists a "... reasonable medical probability... arose out of and occurred during the course of employment at Bush Construction from the heavy physical labor required,...

  The WCJ and WCAB found Dr. Oehlschlaeger's medical opinions to constitute substantial medical evidence based on his detailed evaluation, physical examination, and review of medical records, despite Petitioner's contentions of conclusory opinions and lack of explanation.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ8309831 · 2021-11-23 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8The medical reports in the trial record are contradictory and confusing. As explained above, the doctors' opinions are not based on adequate information, and they appear to be the result of the physicians' speculation, conjecture, or guess. Again, based on our review of the trial record, it is clear that the record does not contain substantial evidence upon which the issue of injury AOE/COE can be made.4

  The WCJ's findings on injury AOE/COE were not supported by substantial evidence due to inconsistent and speculative medical opinions; the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and remanded for further proceedings with a new medical-legal report.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ13150222 · 2021-10-04 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 22, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ took the matter off calendar on the basis that expedited hearings are limited to claims with one or more accepted body parts.

  The WCAB panel found that the WCJ's denial of an expedited hearing based on the absence of an admitted body part was invalid under Labor Code section 5502, and that the matter should be returned to the trial level for further proceedings with a complete evidentiary record.

  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.

• FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• Federal Insurance Company
• FEDERAL INSURANCE CO.
• FEDERAL INSURANCE
• FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ADJUSTED BY CHUBB GROUP
• Federal Insurance/Chubb Group

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.