Preferred Professional Insurance Company

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this insurance carrier is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

• Medical treatment / UR / IMR3
• Liens2
• Psyche AOE/COE1

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 2
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Oakland 1
• Pomona 1
• Santa Ana 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.

• 4 for the applicant
• 4 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 9 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.

• ADJ16505110 · 2026-04-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9§ 9795.3(b)(2) applies in this matter and find that cost petitioner is entitled to the greater of market rate or county superior court rate under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1). In this matter, we find that translating a C&R is most similar to appearing at an appeals board hearing which falls under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1). Interpreter fees shall be billed and paid at the greater of the following (i) at the rate for one-half day or one full day as set forth in the Superior Court fee schedule for interpreters in the county where the service was provided, or (ii) at the

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ17425906 · 2025-09-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeLiensremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1LRA Interpreters, Inc., (cost petitioner) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 12, 2025, and amended on June 19, 2025 for a scrivener's error, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: the June 7, 2023 date of service for the interpretation of the compromise and release (C&R) falls under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(2) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9795.3(b)(2))1 and cost petitioner was adequately compensated by defendant; the June 6, 2024 date of service for deposition preparation does not fall under AD Rule 9795.3(7)(b)(1), but under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(2); cost petitioner did not meet its burden in establishing market rate; the existing certification of the interpreter is deemed insufficient; and the billing is deemed satisfied.

  The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review whether interpreter services for deposition preparation and C&R reading were properly compensated, whether the interpreter was qualified, and whether the market rate was established. The final decision is deferred pending further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17686288 · 2025-05-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3II. With respect to the assertion by petitioner that the WCJ's Award "far exceeds" the treatment recommendations of the request for authorization (RFA) from applicant's primary treating physician, Vibhay Prasad, M.D. (Petition, p. 8.), the WCJ's Award provides for "further and ongoing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills." Such Award is supported by the Findings of Fact, numbered paragraph 4, which states, "Applicant requires further and continuing medical treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills," which is in turn justified by the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Significant Panel Decision). Further, in addition to the reasons set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe that petitioner's reliance on the case of Allied Signal Aero. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wiggs) (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1077 [84 Cal.Comp.Cases 367] in support of the assertion that the Appeals Board has no jurisdiction to review the medical necessity and reasonableness of home health care is misplaced. Wiggs does not negate the reasoning of the significant panel decision in Patterson v.

  The WCAB panel found that the WCJ had jurisdiction to order continuing treatment at the Centre for Neuro Skills despite a timely utilization review denial, relying on the Patterson line of cases and rejecting the defendant's jurisdiction argument based on the timely RFA denial. The panel also found insufficient substantial medical evidence to discontinue treatment, crediting the treating physician Dr. Prasad's recommendations over the utilization review physician Dr. Gart's denial.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14743881 · 2024-09-25 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on June 27, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed on June 3, 2021 as a gardener by defendant, sustained industrial injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to the head, neck, and concussion. The WCJ further found that the Utilization Review (UR) of the January 25, 2023 treatment request for authorization (RFA) was untimely, however the treatment requested in the RFA was not reasonable or necessary. Further, that the issue was moot as a new determination could now be obtained under Labor Code section 4610(k)1, and that Patterson2 does not apply to this case at this time.

  The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in deeming the treatment moot due to passage of time, granting reconsideration to further review the merits and evidence of treatment necessity.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15800847 · 2024-04-08 · Anaheim District OfficeLiensdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1For the reasons stated in the portion of the Report quoted below, we will deny the lien claimant's Petition. Before providing reimbursement for medical treatment, "The insurer may require prior authorization of any nonemergency treatment or diagnostic service and may conduct reasonably necessary utilization review pursuant to Section 4610." (Lab. Code, § 4600, subd. (d)(5).) While defendant did generally acknowledge lien claimant as the provider authorized to provide medical treatment to the injured worker, the specific treatment for which lien claimant now seeks reimbursement was never authorized pursuant to Labor Code section 4610 et seq. (Nor

  The lien claimant failed to obtain required prior authorization for the physical therapy services provided by Dr. Krause, so the lien reimbursement was denied.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10834249 · 2022-05-09 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3This matter proceeded to trial on December 22, 2021. At trial the parties stipulated that the applicant age 62 on the alleged date of injury, while employed during the period April 12, 2016, through April 12, 2017, as a laborer, Occupational Group Number 360, at Tarzana, California, by Country Fresh Herbs, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his lumbar spine, neck, shoulders, knees, feet, and thoracic spine. The parties also stipulated that Applicant was employed by Country Fresh Herbs from 1995 to December 20, 2020 and that PQME Silverman found that the Applicant's entire period of employment was injurious. At the time of injury, the employer's workers' compensation carriers were Republic Underwriters for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016; Falls Lake Insurance Company for the period January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017; and Preferred Professional Insurance Company for the period January 1, 2018, through December 20, 2020. The sole issue presented for determination was the date of injury pursuant to Labor Code § 5412 and Labor Code § 5500.5, with Republic Underwriters contending that the liability period pursuant to Labor Code § 5500.5 is after its last date of coverage.

  The WCJ found that the date of injury for cumulative trauma was September 12, 2017, based on the presence of permanent disability and applicant's knowledge of the disability caused by employment on that date, supported by Dr. Silverman's evaluation and reports.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14297412 · 2025-09-29 · Pomona District OfficeOther disputed issuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Pursuant to Labor Code section 4603.2(b)(1)(A), a provider of services provided pursuant to Section 4600, including but not limited to interpreters, shall submit its request for payment with an itemization of services provided and the charge for each service, a copy of all reports showing the services performed, the prescription or referral from the primary treating physician if the services were performed by a person other than the primary treating physician, and any evidence of authorization for the services that may have been received. The request for payment with an itemization of services provided and the charge for each service shall be submitted to the employer within 12 months of the date of service or within 12 months of the date of discharge for inpatient facility services. (Lab. Code, § 4603.2(b)(1)(B).)

  The Appeals Board found that the interpreting service was not provided in the context of medical treatment or medical-legal examination, so the 12-month billing requirement under Labor Code section 4603.2(b) did not apply, and thus the petitioner's bill was not barred as untimely.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ17140347 · 2025-05-15 · Bakersfield District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on removal, the parties entered into a Compromise & Release. Therefore, the Petition for Removal in response to the decision issued on June 26, 2024 is moot, and it will be dismissed.

  The parties entered into a Compromise & Release while the Petition for Removal was pending, rendering the petition moot.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18852191 · 2024-03-19 · Oakland 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 found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.

  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.

• Preferred Professional Insurance Company
• PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL 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.