Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford

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 9
• Santa Ana 2
• Anaheim 1
• Oakland 1
• Pomona 1
• San Francisco 1
• Stockton 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
• 7 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 16 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this insurance carrier is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ19191631 · 2026-03-19 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Applicant's unrebutted credible testimony established that she worked for Avellino Labs USA. Avellino Labs USA was her employer at the time of injury. Defendants failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3357 presumption of employment. Defendants presented no evidence or witnesses on the issue. Whether or not applicant had a general and special employer at the time of injury is deferred. Applicant acknowledged being paid by Gava Talent Solutions.

  The WCJ found applicant was employed by Avellino based on credible testimony and evidence, and defendants failed to rebut the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357. The Appeals Board affirmed this finding and amended the F&A to clarify the injury arose out of and in the course of employment under Labor Code section 3600.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11372081 · 2025-11-17 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant Webcor Construction, insured by Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford (defendant) each seek reconsideration of the August 28, 2025 Joint Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in Case No. ADJ11372081 that applicant, while employed as a day laborer on March 28, 2018, sustained industrial injury to his head, headaches, right shoulder, neck, low back, TMJ, left ear tinnitus, both eyes, loss of consciousness, and psyche, resulting in permanent total disability. After application of nonindustrial apportionment, the WCJ awarded 80 percent permanent partial disability. In ADJ15621674, the WCJ found that applicant, while similarly employed from March 1, 2017 to May 18, 2018, sustained industrial injury in the form of bilateral hearing loss resulting in no ratable permanent disability. In ADJ11645081, applicant while similarly employed on June 20, 2017, sustained industrial injury to his left wrist, left index finger, and left hand, resulting in 14 percent permanent partial disability.

  The WCJ's apportionment analysis of Dr. Wilson was substantial evidence, but Dr. Friedman's apportionment analysis was not substantial evidence. Applicant's disabilities should be added rather than combined, resulting in a permanent disability percentage exceeding 100 percent, supporting a finding of permanent and total disability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17937030 · 2025-11-04 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5A decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Where the issue in dispute is a medical one, expert medical evidence is ordinarily needed to resolve the issue. (Insurance Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 912 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913]; Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].)

  The PQME's expert medical opinion was found to be substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's findings, and defendant failed to provide rebuttal medical evidence or properly investigate before trial.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10963100 · 2025-10-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal in response to the July 8, 2025 Joint Findings and Order issued by a workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found, in pertinent part, that (1) applicant, while employed by defendant on June 17, 2017, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his right ankle in case number ADJ10955805; (2) applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists and knees in ADJ1096310 [date of injury not identified]; (3) applicant properly obtained a qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in pain management; (4) the reporting of Guodong Li, M.D., is admissible as the PQME in pain management; and (5) Dr. Li shall be allowed to finalize the evaluation of the applicant. The WCJ ordered that Dr. Li be allowed complete his evaluation of applicant, with all medical records to be forwarded to him in the next 15 days, and that his original reports shall remain in evidence. All other issues, including sanctions and costs were ordered off calendar, with the parties to meet and confer as to same within the next 15 days.

  The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his right ankle on June 17, 2017, which was affirmed by the Appeals Board.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17825300 · 2025-09-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on June 18, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a furniture salesperson on May 15, 2022, applicant sustained injury to the head, brain, and psyche, and claims to have sustained injury to the heart and sleep; (2) defendant did not meet its burden of proving that there is an approved and enforceable Medical Provider Network (MPN) that provides ancillary services; (3) there is no MPN control over the selection of the home care provider; (4) applicant has the right to select a family member as her home care provider; (5) there is a legitimate issue as to the enforceability of a MPN's control over the selection of a home care provider; (6) defendant's litigation of the issue of a MPN's control over the selection of a home care provider does not rise to the level of a bad faith action within the meaning of Labor Code section 5813; and (7) applicant is not entitled to attorney fees pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

  The WCJ found no enforceable MPN providing ancillary services, so defendant cannot assert MPN control over home care provider selection. Applicant's right to select a family member as home care provider was supported by evidence including testimony and medical authorization.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15168100 · 2024-08-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 24, 2024. The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her abdominal wall; that the record needs development on the disputed issue of industrial injury to the psychiatric system; and that applicant's claim is presumptively compensable pursuant to Labor Code, section 5402. The WCJ ordered that the "disputed issue of industrial injury to the psychiatric system is deferred pending further development of the record."

  The WCJ found the psychiatric injury evidence inconclusive and ordered further development of the record, which the WCAB panel upheld, denying the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15199903 · 2023-09-12 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Of significance is that the PQME thereafter reviewed medical records dated between January 8, 2010 and March 15, 2022 and then issued a supplemental report dated July 7, 2022 (Exhibit J2). The doctor parses out several reports between August 17, 2016 and July 5, 2020 and describes these records as containing "several important points to be noted". (Id. at p. 1). The first report reviewed is dated August 17, 2016 from Dr. Paulo Murrieta who provides that the applicant has had "...back pain...ongoing for three years." Thus, the PQME, after reviewing the records and noting that the applicant has had back pain with radiculopathy for eight years before his injury at Medline, and now knowing that the applicant was not candid with him at the time of the initial evaluation, concluded that the applicant suffered only an exacerbation of his preexisting condition, had no increase in impairment (and actually had less impairment that prior to the injury at issue), and that there was no contribution towards his impairment from the injury at Medline. (Id. at p. 3). At no time did the applicant seek any further supplemental report or seek to schedule a cross-examination.

  The PQME's reports, which reviewed the applicant's extensive preexisting back condition and found no increase in impairment or need for further treatment, constitute substantial evidence. The WCJ's credibility findings and the applicant's lack of candor support denying permanent disability and further medical treatment.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14125842 · 2023-06-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant 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 reasons stated below, we will deny reconsideration.

  The applicant met her burden of proof for industrial causation of COVID-19 based on credible testimony and medical opinions showing exposure at work and employer's inadequate COVID protocols.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11641128 · 2023-01-27 · Van Nuys District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2BACKGROUND Applicant claims to have sustained a psychiatric injury while employed by defendant as a Claims Adjustor during the period from October 25, 2017, through October 25, 2018 (ADJ11641129). Applicant also claims injury to her cervical spine and bilateral elbows while employed by defendant during the period from February 20, 2017, through February 20, 2018 (ADJ11641128). The Findings and Award regarding case number ADJ11641128 are not disputed and will not be addressed herein. On March 22, 2019, applicant was evaluated by psychiatric qualified medical examiner (QME) Yatin Patel, M.D. Dr. Patel interviewed applicant, took a history, reviewed the medical record, and conducted psychiatric testing. The diagnoses included: adjustment disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, in partial remission; Panic Disorder Without Agoraphobia, in partial remission; and a GAF (Global Assessment of Function) score of 78 [0% whole person impairment]. (Def. Exh. F, Yatin Patel, M.D., March 22, 2019, p. 30.) Dr. Patel discussed a "4 steps Rolda analysis" (Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc) (Rolda)) and then stated:

  The Board found that the applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the unrebutted expert opinion of psychiatric QME Dr. Yatin Patel, who performed a Rolda analysis and attributed predominant causation to actual events of employment, with 45% due to harassment and hostile work environment and 30% due to personnel actions, which did not meet the threshold to bar compensation under Labor Code section 3208.3(h).

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13786644 · 2022-04-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5In the court's Findings & Order and Opinion on Decision the court found injury to applicant's face based on applicant's testimony regarding the mechanism of injury and testimony of Tony Jaques, regarding his observations of applicant's appearance after the incident occurred. In reviewing the record, the court agrees with defendant regarding the finding of injury to Applicant's face should be rescinded. The court believes this finding was premature and all body parts should be deferred. Therefore, the court recommends as to Findings Number 1, it should be amended to: the applicant while employed on August 26, 2020 as a carpenter helper, at San Bernardino, California, by Stater Bros. Markets, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, back, and left ear. Moreover, Findings Number 4 should be amended to: All body parts are deferred.

  The court found the initial injury finding to the face premature and amended it to defer all body parts, based on review of the record and testimony.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10390527 · 2022-03-22 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ issued the F&O on January 7, 2022, finding in pertinent part that "the statutes of limitations" were tolled until the applicant was advised of the statutory deadlines for filing a claim under Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 729 [39 Cal. Comp. Cases 768]. The opinion further determined that no claim form was ever provided to applicant by his employer. Accordingly, the WCJ determined that none of the three continuous trauma applications were barred by "any statute of limitations." (F&O, Joint Finding of Fact No. 1.)

  The WCJ's original decision did not clearly identify the specific statutes at issue or the date of injury under section 5412, which is necessary to determine if the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify these issues.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12181439 · 2023-12-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2timely manner. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on October 25, 2023 is untimely and will be dismissed.

  The petition for reconsideration was filed after the 30-day statutory deadline, making it untimely and depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider it.

  Official decision · page 2 →

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.

• PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD
• Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford
• Property Insurance and Casualty Company of Hartford
• PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD
• Property and Casualty Company of Hartford
• Property & Casualty Company of Hartford
• PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
• PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
• AMERICAN PROPERTY INSURANCE CO.

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.