National Union Fire 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

• Santa Ana 4
• Los Angeles 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Bakersfield 2
• Oakland 2
• Oxnard 2
• Sacramento 2
• Anaheim 1
• Long Beach 1
• Marina del Ray 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Redding 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.

• 10 for the applicant
• 9 returned for more record
• 5 for the defense

Counted over 24 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.

• ADJ12655039 · 2026-02-20 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of November 25, 2025, wherein it was found that while employed on August 7, 2019 as a maintenance technician, applicant sustained industrial injury to the right hand, right arm, and psyche, causing permanent total (100%) disability. In finding permanent total disability, the WCJ relied on the reporting of vocational expert Paul Broadus, who opined that applicant's industrial injury precluded applicant from vocational rehabilitation or from employment in the open labor market.

  The WCJ's finding of permanent total disability was not supported by substantial evidence because the vocational expert's opinion went beyond the medical work restrictions and included unsupported work preclusions; the record needed further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10111444 · 2026-02-02 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on September 2, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was not entitled to an award of temporary disability because he was capable of working modified duty, but did not work.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the evidence may not sufficiently support the WCJ's finding that modified work was offered; the case merits further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ1341476 · 2025-08-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4(Lab. Code, § 3600(10), bold added.)2 Therefore, defendant held the initial burden to establish its "post-termination defense" to

  The record was insufficient to determine whether the post-termination defense applied or whether an exception under section 5412 applied, so the case was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11207109 · 2025-05-29 · Bakersfield District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3QME Dr. Kenly has evaluated the applicant and issued four reports. In his initial report of February 5, 2019, Dr. Kenly reviewed the submitted medical records and documented his clinical evaluation of applicant. The QME's report identifies both industrial causation and resulting permanent disability. (Ex. 1, Report of Michael Kenly, M.D., dated February 5, 2019, at p. 10.) With respect to apportionment, the QME states:

  The WCAB found the QME's apportionment opinion to be substantial evidence based on the QME's clinical evaluation, medical expertise, and explanation of obesity as a nonindustrial factor causing permanent disability, thus affirming the 50% apportionment to nonindustrial factors.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ15306840 · 2025-05-27 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision" (F&O) issued on February 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the facts and medical evidence were irreconcilable in this case and found no substantial medical evidence proving industrial injury. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing on his claim.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in relying on a QME's summary of subrosa video not in evidence to discredit applicant's credibility and that the medical evidence supported industrial injury. The matter was returned for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13474651 · 2024-11-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 14, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because applicant previously settled a case involving the same employers, similar injuries, and the same body parts.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in barring the claim by res judicata because the prior settlement did not clearly include the brain, nervous system related to psych or stress, or neurological problems aside from Parkinson's disease, and the applicant did not intend to settle those injuries.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11348013 · 2024-08-22 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based upon Applicant's credible testimony, the treatment records, and the findings by QME Dr. McGahan, it is found that Applicant sustained injury to his right shoulder arising out of and occurring in the course of employment on July 25, 2017.

  The WCJ found applicant sustained industrial injury to the right shoulder on July 25, 2017, based on credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. McGahan, despite defendant's challenge to evidence admission and applicant credibility.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13208164 · 2024-04-08 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on January 19, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed from June 1, 1987, through October 1, 2002, as a professional baseball player, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, neck, legs, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, back, knees, ankles, feet, toes, and injury in the form of sleep and nervous system while employed by the Los Angeles Dodgers from June 3, 1987, to October 15, 1993; the Seattle Mariners from February 18, 1994 to May 13, 1995; the Montreal Expos from May 17, 1995 to October 15, 1996; the Philadelphia Phillies from November 21, 1996 to September 30, 1998; the Pittsburgh Pirates from February 16, 1999 to April 5, 2000; and the Mexican League from 2000 to 2002. The WCJ found that applicant's claim is barred by section 3600.5, subdivision (d), and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claimed injury.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's initial denial based on section 3600.5(d) was premature and granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the entire record, deferring final decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9626208 · 2023-10-23 · Redding District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, as the WCJ stated in the Opinion on Decision, Dr. Sommer "...does not address the requirements set out in Escobedo, in that his opinions generally leave out,... the necessary explanation of why and how the pathology and prior injury result in the current disability, and why and how these conditions lead him to choose the percentages that he does." (F&A, pp. 7 § 8, Opinion on Decision.) In his Report, the WCJ explained, "Considering that the missing analysis here is required by Escobedo to find that the opinion is substantial evidence, these faults are fatal to the substantiality of his opinion on apportionment of disability in the back." (Report, p. 3.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found that the AME Dr. Sommer's opinions on apportionment lacked the necessary explanation required by Escobedo to be substantial evidence, leading to rescission and remand for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10654013 · 2023-08-04 · San Jose District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of May 23, 2023, wherein it was found that, while employed on August 30, 2016 as a laborer, applicant sustained admitted injury to his dominant right hand and fingers causing permanent disability of 24% after apportionment. In finding permanent disability of 24%, the WCJ followed the apportionment findings of agreed medical evaluator (AME) orthopedic hand specialist Leonard Gordon, M.D., who opined that 60 percent of applicant's permanent disability was due to the industrial injury, and 40 percent was due to non- industrial factors. The WCJ also rejected vocational evidence offered to rebut the permanent impairment rating garnered from the AME's medical evaluation.

  The WCAB found that the medical evidence supporting the apportionment was conclusory and not substantial medical evidence, requiring reconsideration and further evidentiary development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12083629 · 2022-03-11 · Oxnard District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant County of Ventura, the self-insured employer, seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Orders of December 21, 2021, wherein it was found that while employed as a deputy sheriff during a cumulative period ending on March 18, 2016, applicant sustained industrial injury in the forms valvular heart disease, coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease, causing permanent disability of 80% and the need for further medical treatment. With regard to the issue of apportionment, it was found that "Labor Code section 4663 does not apply based on the law enforcement presumption." It was also found that "Labor Code section 4664 does not apply based on no evidence of a prior award, finding or stipulation of disability."

  The Board found that Labor Code section 4663 does not apply due to the law enforcement presumption, and section 4664 does not apply because there was no prior award of permanent disability. The Compromise and Release settlement did not specify permanent disability or apportionment. Liability is limited to the one-year period under section 5500.5, and section 5005 credit applies only if two carriers are on risk during the same period, which was not the case here.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10058585 · 2021-07-30 · Oakland District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7What is essential to the legal analyses cited above is that it is the employer that is the party to whom a claim for serious and willful misconduct is brought. As this is applied to the facts in the current case, it is apparent that this requirement is lacking.

  Official decision · page 7 →

Also recorded as

The same insurance carrier is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 13.

• NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
• National Union Fire Insurance Company
• National Union Fire Insurance
• NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
• NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA
• NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, adjusted by AIG
• NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., ADMIN. BY GALLAGHER BASSETT
• NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, PA.
• NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURG
• National Union Fire Insurance Co.
• NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
• National Union Insurance

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.