California WCABInsurance carrier
National Casualty Company
National Casualty Company is named as an insurance carrier in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (3), Permanent disability rating (2) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). Defense most often ran through Bradford & Barthel (5). The employer appearing most often is Ariana Auto Body (2). The office that heard the most of them is Oakland.
- Decisions
- 12
- Years
- 2021–2026
- Issues disputed
- 4
- District offices
- 7
What they litigate
Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.
- Bradford & Barthel5
- D'Andre Law3
- Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen1
- Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, LLP1
- Mullen & Filippi1
6 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.
- Ariana Auto Body2
- Advanced Manufacturer Development1
- Brad's Restaurant1
- Cassady Roofing INC.1
- East Bay Innovations1
- Elite Landscape Construction, INC.1
- La Cumbre Mutual Water Company1
- Premier Commercial Cleaning1
Where they appear
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.
Counted over 12 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.
- ADJ21458754 · 2026-03-03 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6With these principles in mind, we observe that the process by which a party may seek the issuance of a panel of QMEs is addressed in Rule 30 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 30). Rule 30 requires that represented parties submit a request for a panel of QMEs electronically to the DWC Medical Unit, and that they identify the following elements:
The panel request was valid despite an incorrect date of injury because it contained the correct claim number, which is the primary identifier for a QME panel request under Rule 30. The Appeals Board emphasized substance over form and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the date error.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ17943105 · 2026-01-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6injuries, applicant was not forthcoming. On June 17, 2023, applicant sought emergency treatment and requested a spine MRI, however on physical examination applicant's back was normal. Eventually, applicant self-procured lumbar spine x-rays and an MRI which were reviewed by his primary treating physician but no further action was indicated by him. Applicant also complained of left side testicle pain, however, Dr. Alchemy referred him to his primary care physician for it and per applicant he treated for it non-industrially including surgical intervention. There is simply no evidence in the record of industrial navel pain/left testicle injury. Significantly, AME, Dr. Marino only found injury to applicant's left ankle, and we are bound to make our findings based on the medical evidence. Hence, applicant did not prove any industrial injury to his neck, back, chest, shoulders nor navel pain/left testicle.
No substantial medical evidence supports industrial injury to body parts other than the left ankle; AME Dr. Marino found injury only to the left ankle.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ16740659 · 2024-10-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.11Next, the parties dispute whether applicant's injury to the low back was industrial. No doctor has provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back. At one point, the QME concludes that there is no way to answer that question. The QME failed to adequately explain how and why he was incapable of answering the question. It further appears that the QME failed to consider the proper legal standard of causation in workers' compensation, which is contributory causation. The September 13, 2022 injury need not be the sole cause of injury to the low back. It is sufficient if the September 13, 2022 injury aggravated or exacerbated prior injury to the low back.
No doctor provided a clear causation opinion for lumbar spine injury. The QME's equivocal testimony requires further development for credibility determinations. The record is insufficient to determine industrial injury to lumbar spine.
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ16740659 · 2024-08-13 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.6Next, the parties dispute whether applicant's injury to the low back was industrial. No doctor has provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back. At one point, the QME concludes that there is no way to answer that question. The QME failed to adequately explain how and why he was incapable of answering the question. It further appears that the QME failed to consider the proper legal standard of causation in workers' compensation, which is contributory causation. The September 13, 2022 injury need not be the sole cause of injury to the low back. It is sufficient if the September 13, 2022 injury aggravated or exacerbated prior injury to the low back.
No doctor provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back; QME equivocated and failed to apply proper legal standard; record development required.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ20630134 · 2026-03-17 · Marina Del Rey 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, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate
The Appeals Board found that defendant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ18181493 · 2025-10-14 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on July 11, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Tuesday, August 5, 2025 to file a timely petition. EAMS reflects that defendant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on August 5, 2025 at "18:32" (i.e., 6:32 p.m.). Therefore, it was deemed untimely filed on August 6, 2025 and will be dismissed.
The petition was filed after 5:00 p.m. on the last permissible day, so it was deemed filed the next court day and thus untimely.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ16406595 · 2024-12-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to petitioner if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition for removal.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ18176659 · 2024-08-15 · Santa Ana 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, § 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 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 because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ13021561 · 2024-06-14 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.445 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. As relevant here, the WCJ issued two interlocutory orders: (1) Setting the matter for trial; and (2) Staying medical-legal discovery, except as to chiropractic, pending the outcome of the trial.
The petition was dismissed because the WCJ's pre-trial conference orders were interlocutory and not final orders, thus not subject to reconsideration.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ16406595 · 2024-02-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show 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 → - ADJ17299509 · 2023-08-07 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and/or Alternatively Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The petition was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10614628 · 2021-09-16 · Santa Barbara Satellite OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petitions for Reconsideration of the decision issued on July 24, 2021 have been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, they will be dismissed.
Petitions for Reconsideration were withdrawn by petitioner and thus dismissed by the panel.
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.
- NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY
- National Casualty Company
- NATIONAL CASUALTY
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.
Also on this
Private workspace
Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.
Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.