Great American Alliance Insurance Company

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

• AOE/COE2
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• QME/AME process1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Anaheim 1
• Oxnard 1
• Pomona 1
• Redding 1
• Riverside 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 3 for the defense
• 1 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 5 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work.

Decisions

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

• ADJ21050654 · 2026-06-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The issue before us is whether applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits where applicant's employment was terminated the day after the industrial injury because his work permit expired, and applicant has not been legally permitted to work since. Here, we find the record is sufficient to affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits from the date he stopped working, for the reasons set forth in the Report. Defendant has not met its burden of proof necessary to establish that defendant made applicant a bona fide offer of modified work to relieve itself of liability to pay applicant temporary disability benefits.2

  The defendant failed to prove that a bona fide offer of modified work was made or that modified work was actually available to the applicant within his restrictions, despite the applicant's termination due to an expired work permit. The WCJ's credibility determinations were upheld, and the evidence did not meet the burden of proof to relieve the defendant of liability for temporary disability benefits.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16367723 · 2025-10-20 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of August 1, 2025, wherein it was found that "applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her circulatory system, nervous system, head, or brain as a result of an alleged February 18, 2022 specific injury or an alleged cumulative trauma injury from November 1, 2005 through February 15, 2022." It appears that the above claimed body parts encompass those involved in a February 18, 2022 stroke. The parties had stipulated that applicant claimed a specific February 18, 2022 injury to her "circulatory system, nervous system, respiratory system, head, brain, chemical exposure, right fingers, right hand, right arm, excretory system, right leg, right ankle, right foot, and right toes while working as a Press Operator/Assembler for TrafFix Devices, Inc.

  The WCJ found no industrial injury in the form of stroke, but the Appeals Board deferred this issue for further development of the record to avoid piecemeal findings and to have a single final decision on all body parts and legal defenses.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14364236 · 2024-08-26 · Redding District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2On June 10, 2024, the WCJ issued her Findings of Fact, determining that Dr. Sonu was not disqualified as the QME, and that the QME was not unavailable for cross-examination. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision noted the QME's detailed physical findings in the February 7, 2023 report, as well as the attestations of the QME that he had personally accomplished a physical examination of the applicant. (Opinion on Decision, p. 3.) The WCJ further noted that applicant did not promptly raise the issue of the adequacy of the examination, waiting more than one year to offer any objection to the evaluation, as set forth in his April 1, 2024 DOR. With respect to the availability of the QME for deposition, the WCJ noted that applicant had the burden of proving unavailability of the QME but had offered no evidence in support of that contention. (Id. at p. 4.)

  The WCJ found the QME's physical examination credible based on detailed findings and attestations, and applicant failed to prove unavailability for deposition; removal standard not met.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12431390 · 2023-12-21 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Pursuant to Section 5412: The date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment. (Lab. Code, § 5412.) As noted above, at the trial the parties stipulated that applicant's period of employment for Atkore International was during the period from November 2013, through January 2019. In order to determine the section 5412 date of injury, the date that applicant first suffered disability and knew that the disability was caused by his employment, must be established. Our review of the record indicates these dates have not been adequately established.

  The WCJ did not adequately establish the Section 5412 date of injury or the Section 5500.5 date of injury, so the matter is remanded for further development and determination of these dates and liability.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12728099 · 2021-12-10 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Leisure Yu, M.D., prepared a QME report dated 12/1/2020 (Exhibit A). The applicant reported that she had complaints to her right ankle and right foot. She denied any prior right ankle and right foot injuries. She stated that she was injured when she was about to help a customer and as she stood up from her chair and turned, she twisted her right foot. The injury was reported and she was referred for treatment. The review of records showed right ankle sprain and right foot sprain on 8/15/2010 and 3/25/2012. On 4/9/2014, she was seen for right foot pain with x-rays on 5/21/2014 showing hallux valgus with pes planus. On 10/27/2015, she was seen for bilateral foot pain. Dr. Yu concluded that the applicant did not sustain work related injuries to the right ankle or right foot. The applicant has a history of chronic recurrent right and left ankle and foot sprain, strain and pain. The history of right ankle and foot strain dates back to 8/15/2010. Dr. Yu questions the veracity of the applicant's history statements.

  The WCJ and WCAB panel found that the applicant did not meet her burden of proof to establish injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the QME reports and the applicant's failure to appear at trial.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18590024 · 2026-01-21 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on October 30, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).2

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

  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.

• GREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY
• Great American Alliance Insurance Company
• GREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE
• Great American Alliance Company

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.