Imperium Ins. Co. Admin. by Athens Administrators

What they litigate

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

• Apportionment2
• Permanent total disability1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Fresno 2
• Anaheim 1
• Los Angeles 1
• San Diego 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 applicant
• 2 for the defense

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.

• ADJ7284005 · 2023-10-25 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.14We conclude that defendants have not met their burden of proof. We reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg do not rise to the level of substantial evidence of apportionment under Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [Appeals Board en banc]. Secondly, there is substantial evidence that the injuries sustained by applicant in the first motor vehicle accident left him permanently and totally disabled even before the second accident happened.

  The Board found that the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg did not meet the substantial evidence standard for apportionment because they failed to provide detailed reasoning and medical explanation for their apportionment percentages.

  Official decision · page 14 →
• ADJ7284005 · 2023-03-02 · Fresno District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9NO APPORTIONMENT OF DISABILITY BETWEEN THE TWO INJURIES The issue is whether applicant's permanent and total disability may be legally apportioned between the injuries he sustained in the first and second motor vehicle accidents. The burden of proof on apportionment is with the defense. (Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1114 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].) We conclude that defendants have not met their burden of proof. We reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg do not rise to the level of substantial evidence of apportionment under Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [Appeals Board en banc]. Secondly, there is substantial evidence that the injuries sustained by applicant in the first motor vehicle accident left him permanently and totally disabled even before the second accident happened. Returning briefly to the WCJ's decision, we reiterate that in ostensibly apportioning 70% of the permanent and total disability to the first injury of April 16, 2010 and 30% to the second injury of July 14, 2011, the WCJ specified his reliance upon Dr. Feinberg's medical reports.

  The Board found that the defense failed to meet the burden of proof on apportionment because the medical opinions of Dr. Munday and Dr. Feinberg were not substantial evidence and lacked sufficient medical reasoning. The Board credited the opinions of Dr. Miner and Dr. Van de Bittner that the first injury alone caused permanent and total disability before the second injury occurred.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ7803005 · 2022-09-09 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent total disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on April 16, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to his hands, wrists, psyche, lumbar spine, cervical spine, knees, right shoulder and gastrointestinal system arising out of and in the course of his employment as a painter during a period ending January 25, 2011, by defendant, LA Custom Finish, resulting in temporary disability from February 11, 2011, through February 8, 2013, permanent partial disability of 97% and need of further medical treatment. Applicant contends in his petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not finding that the injury caused permanent total disability. Defendant Imperium, which insured the employer for workers' compensation liability at the time of the injury, filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be dismissed or denied. The WCJ issued a report in which he recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied.

  The WCJ found permanent partial disability but not permanent total disability; the WCAB approved a compromise and release settlement instead of granting permanent total disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12265568 · 2022-04-22 · San Diego District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, it appears that following applicant's injury and initial treatment at Concentra, applicant was provided with work restrictions, including push/pull limitations, weight-bearing and squatting/kneeling restrictions. (Ex. 19, Concentra encounter note, dated January 11, 2019.) Applicant testified to providing copies of the work restrictions to the employer (January 13, 2021 MINUTES, at 6:1), and the reporting from Concentra was among the documents contained in applicant's subpoenaed personnel file. (Ex. 21, Subpoenaed records of Mann vs Pest, p.MVP000059.) The record reflects no bona fide offer of modified duties conforming to applicant's work restrictions made by the defendant directly following applicant's injury. Applicant continued to seek medical treatment for his injuries, initially with the Concentra Clinic, and later with Glen Nusbaum, D.C. The record reflects no good faith offer of modified duties through at least May, 2019.

  The employer failed to prove it made a good faith offer of modified work within applicant's restrictions, so the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from January 11, 2019 to present.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ7760148 · 2024-08-27 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on June 14, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition for reconsideration, so the petition was dismissed.

  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.

• IMPERIUM INSURANCE
• IMPERIUM INS. CO. admin. by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS
• Imperium Insurance 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.