Palomar Specialty 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

• Los Angeles 1
• Oakland 1
• Redding 1
• Riverside 1
• San Bernardino 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 5 for the defense
• 1 for the applicant

Counted over 6 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.

• ADJ1218145 · 2026-02-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the general allegation that the WCJ is biased.

  The petition for disqualification was denied because the applicant did not establish the technical requirements for disqualification, but the Appeals Board granted removal of the case to ensure substantial justice and expedite proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20916819 · 2026-02-03 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ has a conflict of interest. Thereafter the WCJ recused herself from these proceedings and the matter was reset before another WCJ. As the WCJ has recused herself, no issue exists regarding disqualification and the petition will be dismissed as moot. To conserve court resources, the Appeals Board would respectfully request that parties seek to withdraw moot petitions as a matter of courtesy.

  The WCJ recused herself, rendering the disqualification petition moot.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18352965 · 2025-11-06 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2II. 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 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. Thus, had the Petition been timely, we would have denied it on the merits for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report.

  Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ20203816 · 2025-10-07 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on June 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  Petition for removal was withdrawn after parties entered into a Compromise and Release, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18067229 · 2025-07-10 · San Bernardino District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the additional reasons given below, we will deny reconsideration.

  The WCAB panel found that the defendant did not meet the burden of proof to show a change in applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify discontinuing ongoing home health care, and thus denied the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18291313 · 2025-02-25 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal filed on August 21, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, 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.

• PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
• Palomar Specialty 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.