Preferred Employers 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

• Van Nuys 4
• Anaheim 3
• Santa Ana 3
• Los Angeles 2
• Sacramento 2
• Salinas 2
• San Diego 2
• Stockton 2
• Bakersfield 1
• Long Beach 1
• Oakland 1
• Riverside 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.

• 17 for the defense
• 5 returned for more record
• 4 for the applicant

Counted over 26 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.

• ADJ9744423 · 2026-03-27 · Sacramento District OfficeSJDB voucherapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ issued a finding that defendant mailed the SJDV to applicant's address on the Official Address Record, which appears correct. However, the unrebutted testimony of applicant is that he was not living at that address at the time of service and that he did not receive the voucher. The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible. (See Garza, supra.) Thus, the evidentiary presumption is rebutted, and we will find that applicant did not receive the SJDV that defendant mailed in 2019.

  Applicant's credible testimony that he did not receive the voucher rebutted the presumption of receipt, leading to a finding that applicant did not receive the voucher mailed to the official address record.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16913929 · 2025-10-24 · Van Nuys District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 27, 2025, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a server, waitress, manager, and kitchen worker during the period of January 1, 1986 to June 19, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and during the course of employment to her thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists, knees, ankles, and feet, causing permanent disability of 95 percent. The decision also found that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because the date of injury of the cumulative injury is June 7, 2023, based on Labor Code section 54121 (Finding of Fact #11), and because this date is after the date of applicant's termination, her claim is not barred by the post- termination defense (Finding of Fact #12). The F&A further found that the reports of Gabriel Rubanenko, M.D., constitute substantial medical evidence on the issues of injury, temporary disability, date of maximal medical improvement, permanent disability based on whole person

  The claim was not barred by the post-termination defense because the injury date was after termination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11298015 · 2025-05-27 · San Diego District OfficeSJDB voucherremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Applicant contends that the voucher she received on February 25, 2021 in connection with her April 20, 2017 through April 20, 2018 cumulative trauma injury is subsequent to the January 15, 2021 RTWSP payment she received in connection with her January 17, 2018 injury, and she therefore meets the exception in Rule 17302(b). The exception in Rule 17302(b) applies "where the individual receives a Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302.) The term "subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement" modifies the word "injury" not the word "Voucher." In other words, the exception applies where the injury occurs subsequent to receipt of every Return to Work Supplement. Here, the question is whether the date of injury of the cumulative trauma injury is subsequent to the January 15, 2021 RTWSP payment.

  The Board found no determination of the date of injury for the cumulative trauma, which is necessary to decide if the injury date is subsequent to the prior RTWSP payment, so the matter was returned to the trial level for further findings.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11364195 · 2023-09-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3determining the issue of whether applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE to his low back.3 Absent a finding (or stipulation by the parties) that applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE, the provisions of Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) are not applicable and cannot be addressed. Thus, we will rescind the F&O.

  The WCAB found that the record lacked substantial medical evidence to establish injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and the WCJ's prior finding was rescinded and remanded for further proceedings to develop the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13449484 · 2022-12-14 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In this case, Inverse Solutions did not successfully contact their insurer prior to the expiration of the 90-day period from the time the claim form was filed. Inverse Solutions was the sole defendant named on the initial application. There is evidence that Inverse Solutions rejected the claim within 90 days. Josh Jorden's completion of the EDD form indicating that the claim had been denied together with his testimony that he believed that he denied the claim is sufficient to find that the employer rejected the claim within the 90-day period.

  The employer rejected the claim within the 90-day period as evidenced by the EDD form and testimony, so the presumption of compensability does not apply.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10089400 · 2022-04-25 · Stockton District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Both Stipulations with Request for Award reflect that they were based on ratings of the reporting from the AME Dr. Pang. The parties presumably choose an AME because of the AME's expertise and neutrality. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].) We will follow the opinions of the AME unless good cause exists to find their opinion unpersuasive. (Ibid.)

  The permanent disability ratings were based on the AME Dr. Pang's thorough and comprehensive evaluation, and there was no basis to disturb the WCJ's conclusion that the stipulations were adequate.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12990177 · 2021-05-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, and to issue a new decision from which any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration. It is important to note that this decision does not address the merits of the parties' arguments regarding the issues of injury AOE/COE, and the post-termination defense.

  There was insufficient substantial medical evidence to determine injury AOE/COE; the record must be further developed with a medical-legal evaluation.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12990177 · 2021-05-05 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 16, 2021, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, bilateral shoulders, back, and left knee. In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that absent a finding of injury AOE/COE, the post termination defense issue was moot. (F&O, p. 7.)

  The WCJ's denial of injury AOE/COE was based on lack of substantial medical evidence, as the PTP and secondary treating physician reports did not adequately address causation. The Appeals Board found insufficient evidence and ordered further medical-legal evaluation to properly litigate the issue.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19018827 · 2026-06-30 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) be denied for being untimely but is premature or not ripe as to whether there is "good cause" to vacate or set aside the Order. The WCJ recommends the Petition be treated as a "Petition to Vacate" or "Petition to Set Aside" and the matter be returned to the WCJ to hold hearings for a clear record to be created on whether there is "good cause" to vacate or set aside the Order or "good cause" to reinstate the Application. We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the Petition as one seeking reconsideration. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the WCJ may treat the Petition as one to set aside the Order.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was not acted upon within the required timeframe and the matter was recommended to be treated as a petition to set aside the order with a hearing to create a record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10300144 · 2025-04-28 · Long Beach District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1With respect to the issue of whether applicant's Declaration is a petition for disqualification, as discussed in the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, it is not timely filed as one for disqualification and does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960

  The petition was dismissed as untimely and lacking sufficient facts to establish disqualification under the cited legal standards.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18182458 · 2025-03-05 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on December 2, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner, so it was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18844740 · 2024-11-22 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.345 ["[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. Here, the WCJ's decision solely resolves an intermediate evidentiary / discovery issue. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration. As we made clear in our En Banc decision in Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg, (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 462, 475-476 (En Banc), and further emphasized in our Significant Panel Decision in Reed v. County of San Bernardino (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases ___;

  The WCJ's order was not a final order, so reconsideration was not proper; the WCJ lacked authority to rescind the order after jurisdiction transferred to the Appeals Board; the Board rescinded both orders to clarify the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY
• Preferred Employers Insurance Company
• PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE
• PREFERRED EMPLOYERS
• PREFERRED EMPLOYERS SAN DIEGO
• Preferred Employers San Diego
• Preferred Employers

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.