USF&G

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue3
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR2
• Apportionment1
• Earnings / average weekly earnings1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Santa Ana 4
• 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.

• 3 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ13157138 · 2025-09-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.109-10.) The decision in Tanksley emphasized that the parties to a claim of injury occurring prior to January 1, 2005, should not be required to obtain a judicial determination as to the date of injury pursuant to section 5412 in order to determine the appropriate procedure by which to obtain medical-legal reporting. (Ibid.) Such a holding would be inconsistent with the California Constitutional mandate that the workers' compensation law "shall accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character." (Cal. Const., Article XIV, § 4.) In this case, given that the injuries claimed to have occurred prior to January 1, 2005, specifically, during the period of January 5, 1975 to October 1, 1981, Dr. Einbund's reports are admissible.

  The medical reports of Dr. Einbund are admissible because the injury occurred prior to January 1, 2005, and thus the pre-SB 899 medical-legal reporting procedures apply, as supported by case law and statutory interpretation.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ8102669 · 2025-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Based on the foregoing, we concur with the WCJ's determination that Drs. Hirsch and Fink have identified multiple preexisting nonindustrial factors as causative of applicant's current permanent disability. However, because neither the regular physician nor the QME offers an explanation of how they identified the extent to which each of those factors contributed to present permanent disability, expressed as an approximate percentage, the apportionment analysis is incomplete and cannot be adopted. (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621; Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 647 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647] [Appeals Board may not rely on an apportionment opinion expressed as a mere legal conclusion].)

  The WCAB found that the apportionment analysis by Drs. Hirsch and Fink was incomplete and lacked explanation on how percentages were assigned, thus not substantial evidence to support apportionment.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ11706407 · 2025-04-15 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that the record is clear as to whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion applies. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

  The WCAB found that the issues of jurisdiction and res judicata were not clearly resolved in the prior order and that reconsideration was necessary to fully study the factual and legal issues.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ8763377 · 2022-04-13 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant sought reconsideration1 of the July 17, 2018 Findings and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concluded that there was no subject- matter jurisdiction over the Seattle Mariners ("Mariners"), and that applicant cannot recover against the Miami Marlins ("Marlins") based upon the reciprocity provisions of former Labor Code section 3600.5(b).2 Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding reciprocity under section 3600.5(b), because Florida's reciprocity statute was not in effect at the time of his employment with the Marlins, and also that the WCJ should have admitted medical records submitted after the Mandatory Settlement Conference ("MSC").3

  The WCAB found that the reciprocity provision under section 3600.5(b) did not bar applicant's claim because Florida's reciprocity statute was not in effect during applicant's employment period, and applicant had a significant nexus to California through regular employment there.

  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.

• USF&G
• USF&G 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.