State National 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 5
• Sacramento 2
• Anaheim 1
• Bakersfield 1
• Long Beach 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• San Bernardino 1
• San Francisco 1
• Santa Rosa 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.

• 8 for the defense
• 2 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

• ADJ17108250 · 2026-05-19 · San Bernardino District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.12In light of the foregoing, we do not believe there is substantial evidence to justify the WCJ's decision to issue sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs.

  The WCAB found no substantial evidence to justify the WCJ's imposition of sanctions and attorney's fees and noted the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over some defendants at the time of the F&O.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ10884845 · 2024-06-21 · Bakersfield District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6II. Applicant also claims that the April 20, 2023 discovery order as to a new QME panel in psychiatry was vague. The order instructs applicant's attorney to provide the discovery order to the Administrative Director' Medical Unit within thirty days of its finality. (4/20/23 FA&O, p. 9.) Applicant did not request a QME panel in psychiatry within the time limit specified in the order. When applicant thereafter requested the panel, defendant objected to the request and filed a DOR requesting an Expedited Hearing to obtain a finding that the panel request was invalid. The disputed issue of the validity of the QME panel was heard at the trial on March 14, 2024. On April 2, 2024, the WCJ ordered the QME panel #3397632 invalidated; denied defendant's petition for a stay of an examination with Dr. Michael Hoffman; and allowed applicant and defendant thirty days from the date of these Orders to discuss the potential use of an AME in the field of psychiatry, or, in the absence of agreement, permit either party to request the Administrative Director's Medical Unit issue a QME panel in the field of psychiatry. (4/2/24 F&O, pp.

  The petition was denied because the applicant failed to timely comply with the discovery order to request a QME panel in psychiatry, rendering the panel invalid.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12459250 · 2024-04-26 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The parties proceeded to trial on August 3, 2022. The issues submitted for decision were: "1. Temporary disability: Employee claiming the following period: From October 29, 2018 through 104 weeks. 2. Permanent and stationary date: Employee claims not applicable based on the PQME; employer/carrier claims September 14, 2020 based on Dr. Andolsen. 3. Applicant alleges penalties and TTD Failure to pay anything after the QME. 4. Defendant alleges applicant is a seasonal and temporary employee from August through November." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 8/3/22, 3:3-3:14.)

  Applicant was found entitled to temporary disability benefits from the date of injury through the date of the QME evaluation, as defendant failed to prove termination for cause and applicant's testimony and QME report supported ongoing disability.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11629114 · 2022-09-16 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

  Determinative passage · p.3Whether or not a medical report is substantial evidence is a determination regarding the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10682(c).) Moreover, there has been no finding of grounds for replacement of the PQME pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.3 or Administrative Director (AD) Rule 31.5 and the WCJ has not cited any legal authority for disqualifying him. Therefore, while we agree with the WCJ that Dr. Wellborn's reports are not substantial medical evidence, that the WCJ may assign the reports whatever weight she deems appropriate, and that the WCJ has the discretion to appointment a regular physician pursuant to Labor Code section 5701 if the parties cannot or will not agree to an agreed medical examiner (AME), Dr. Wellborn's reports, which were admitted at the February 7, 2022 trial, must remain part of the record and there are presently no legal grounds for disqualification or replacement of the PQME.

  The WCAB agreed with the WCJ that Dr. Wellborn's reports are not substantial medical evidence and the WCJ may assign the reports whatever weight she deems appropriate, but there are no legal grounds for disqualification or replacement of the PQME, so the reports must remain part of the record.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11994133 · 2022-04-05 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEmixed

  Determinative passage · p.7As indicated above, this WCJ does understand that applicant bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE but in light of the unrebutted and credible testimony of applicant's ever- increasing and unmanageable workload across county lines and substantial medical evidence documenting significant worsening of applicant's eye condition during applicant's employment with the employer herein, this WCJ exercised discretion to ensure substantial justice by ordering development of the record consistent with Labor Code § 3202, which states as follows:

  The WCJ found applicant's credible testimony of increasing workload and substantial medical evidence of worsening eye condition during employment supported further development of the record to address injury AOE/COE and temporary disability.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ14533829 · 2022-01-21 · Long Beach District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC., insured by STATE NAT'L INS. CO, administered by CANNON COCHRAN, hereinafter "Petitioner", through its legal representative, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the November 5, 2021, Findings and Award granting retroactive temporary disability benefits to the applicant based on the unrebutted report of Dr. Balian.

  The unrebutted QME report of Dr. Balian indicated a period of temporary partial disability, and the employer did not provide substantial evidence of a bona fide offer of alternative/modified duty during that period, supporting the award of temporary disability indemnity.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ18574105 · 2026-06-26 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the case off calendar issued on February 12, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ noted in the minutes that defendant was to draft a letter to the qualified medical evaluator (QME) requesting that the QME address cumulative injury.

  The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17257403 · 2025-08-12 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant State National Insurance Company filed a Petition for Reconsideration/Removal (Petition) seeking review of the Order of Joinder issued by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) on May 21, 2025. Therein, the WCJ ordered State National Insurance Company joined as a party defendant in this matter.

  The Appeals Board found defects in the joinder process including lack of proper service and notice, and that the prior dismissal order was without prejudice, thus allowing reconsideration and rescission of the joinder and dismissal orders.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15072799 · 2024-12-17 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, we are unable to conduct meaningful review of the petition or render a decision until we have received a complete record. Thus, this is not a final decision on the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration, and once a final decision is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to sections 5950 et seq.

  The Appeals Board could not conduct meaningful review or render a decision on the merits because the arbitration record lacked required documents, including the arbitrator's report and other items per WCAB Rule 10914(c).

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11292929 · 2024-03-18 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DISMISSED.

  The petition was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision and failed to state grounds with specificity or attach newly discovered evidence as required.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12712852 · 2022-11-09 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 23, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  The petition was timely filed but was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11700609 · 2022-07-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant 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, the petition seeks reconsideration of a non-final order and will be dismissed. Instead, the petition will be treated solely as a petition for removal and we will grant removal.

  The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the order was interlocutory and not a final order, thus not subject to reconsideration; the petition was treated as a petition for removal and granted to rescind the order and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

  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.

• STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
• STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
• State National Insurance Company
• State National 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.