Norguard 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

• Anaheim 3
• Santa Ana 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Los Angeles 2
• San Francisco 2
• Long Beach 1
• Oakland 1
• Pomona 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.

• 9 for the applicant
• 5 for the defense

Counted over 14 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.

• ADJ11186589 · 2026-06-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Ameri Chiropractic (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order (F&O) of May 10, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, arm, wrist, and back pursuant to the prior Findings & Order of April 12, 2019; that lien claimant is not entitled to any payments pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5402(c) as it failed to establish when the claim form was supplied to the employer by applicant or when the employer had knowledge of the injury alleged herein from any other source; that the services provided by lien claimant were self-procured medical expenses and defendant is not liable for reimbursement of those expenses; that lien claimant failed to establish any basis for reimbursement of the lien claim; and there is no basis to award costs to defendant or impose sanctions on lien claimant.

  The WCJ and the Board found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the evidence and prior Findings and Order.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13968756 · 2026-05-11 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant The Hoplon Group, LLC (Hoplon) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant was employed by the Hoplon Group on December 1, 2020, the date of the alleged work-related injury.

  The WCJ found Hoplon Group, LLC was the employer on the injury date based on testimony and evidence, but deferred the issue of Liebo Builders' employment status due to unclear control and subcontracting arrangements.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13332511 · 2025-04-14 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Defendants seek reconsideration of my January 6, 2025 Findings of Fact and Award (hereinafter "the F&A") wherein I found applicant sustained permanent total disability as a result of his industrial injury. In doing so, I followed the opinions of applicant's secondary treating physician and applicant's vocational expert. I rejected the opinions of the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) and defendants' vocational expert. On reconsideration, defendants contend that I acted in excess of my powers by relying on reports that do not constitute substantial evidence and that I applied the incorrect legal standard. The petition is timely and verified. Applicant did not file an answer.

  Applicant is permanently totally disabled due to medical functional limitations from the industrial injury, including blindness in one eye, loss of depth perception, and need for breaks at will. Vocational and medical expert opinions supporting this were found substantial and persuasive. No apportionment was found.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16473370 · 2025-01-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12Hence the preponderance of the evidence shows that Command was the Applicant's employer on the date of injury.

  The preponderance of the evidence shows that Command International Security was the applicant's employer on the date of injury, based on applicant's testimony, corroborating testimony from the project manager, text messages, and lack of evidence of employment or payment by Prestige.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ12634852 · 2024-04-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Pursuant to the arbitrator's opinion, there has been no finding of AOE/COE or any issues of permanent or temporary disability. This arbitration was solely limited to whether the applicant was covered on the alleged date of injury of August 30, 2019.

  The policy did not contain a pre-approved limiting or restricting endorsement excluding applicant from coverage; the Certificate of Liability Insurance did not indicate applicant was excluded; credibility determinations favored applicant.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ11969555 · 2023-12-22 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9This case turns on the question of whether or not it has been established by a preponderance of the evidence (California Labor Code section 3202.5) that the notice of cancellation in question (Norguard Exhibit 3) was in fact mailed. There is evidence that it was, but in light of the questions apparent from both the document offered as the documentary evidence in support of the requisite mailing, as well as the questions raised by the depth, or lack thereof, of the understanding of the

  The evidence presented lacked substantiality to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the notice of cancellation was mailed as required by law and policy.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2023-06-16 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9We believe that the Order Dismissing was issued in error. the applicant consolidation

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in issuing the Order Dismissing without proper suspension proceedings against Frontline and Paul Turley, thus rescinding the order and returning the matter for further proceedings.

• ADJ14742380 · 2022-09-13 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The applicant's and defendant's versions of whether or not the December 16, 2019 automobile accident was reported were directly contrary and incompatible. I found the applicant and Barbara Clark's testimony to be more credible than the defendant's witnesses. Therefore, I determined that the applicant had timely reported the December 16, 2019 injury, that defendant's failure to provide notices relating to potential workers' compensation benefits precluded them from asserting a statute of limitations defense, and as a result found that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment on December 16, 2019 in ADJ14742380.

  The WCJ found the applicant and her witness more credible than the defense witnesses regarding timely notice of the December 16, 2019 injury. The employer failed to provide notices relating to workers' compensation benefits, precluding a statute of limitations defense. The applicant was equitably estopped from the statute of limitations defense due to ignorance of her rights based on employer's conduct and statements.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11714452 · 2022-03-21 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3consideration appears to be whether the alleged special employer exercises control over the details of [an employee's] work. Such control strongly supports the inference that a special employment exists.' (McFarland v. Voorheis-Trindle Co., supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 705; Oxford v. Signal Oil & Gas Co., supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at p. 408; Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 922.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we agree that both Baron HR and Source Logistics had the right to control applicant and exercised that control and that they both benefited from the arrangement. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)

  The WCJ's findings that both Baron HR and Source Logistics exercised control over the applicant and benefited from the employment arrangement were given great weight and supported by credible testimony and evidence, establishing a joint general and special employment relationship.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12703817 · 2026-06-05 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5III. Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).) Here, for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and the Report, defendant failed to establish any substantial prejudice or irreparable harm resulting from the WCJ's orders regarding discovery. The sole dispute is the proper rate of payment, and cost petitioner is attempting to obtain information from defendant to establish the market rate. The WCJ ordered defendant to produce documentation to establish its market rate for its translation services and to produce a witness for deposition regarding the market rate for the geographic region.

  Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the discovery orders; the orders were relevant and necessary for establishing market rates for interpreter services; defendant's arguments were deemed frivolous and for delay.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10763593 · 2023-01-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ issued the Order Dismissing Lien (Order) on July 21, 2022, designating defense counsel to serve the order pursuant to WCAB 10629. Defense counsel served the Order on petitioner on July 27, 2022. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Monday, August 21, 2022 or, if the time to file is extended by 10 days, until Friday, August 26, 2022 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Even if we were to consider service defective, and calculate the time to file the Petition for Reconsideration based on date petitioner received the Order, it would still be untimely. Where the service of a decision is defective, the 20-day statutory time period for filing a petition for reconsideration begins to run when the decision is actually received. (See Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Phillips) (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1, 3 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 1193], Baker v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 1315, 1318 (writ den.).) In this matter, petitioner asserted that it received the order on August 9, 2022. The record here shows that petitioner filed its petition on August 30, 2022, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.

  Petition for Reconsideration was filed after the statutory deadline, even accounting for possible defective service and tolling due to Board error.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13111665 · 2022-08-24 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

  Determinative passage · p.1Nevertheless, the Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order decision issued on May 20, 2022 has been withdrawn by defendant. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  The Appeals Board's failure to act within 60 days was tolled due to Board error, but the petition was withdrawn by defendant, so it 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.

• NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY
• Norguard Insurance Company
• NorGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY
• NorGuard 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.