Acclamation Insurance Management Services

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Oakland 8
• Fresno 5
• Bakersfield 2
• Salinas 2
• San Bernardino 2
• Van Nuys 2
• Pomona 1
• San Diego 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 claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 12 for the defense
• 6 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 20 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’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 claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ9826933 · 2026-06-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5II. The WCJ found that applicant was permanent and stationary or maximum medically improved (MMI) on July 12, 2023 (Finding of Fact No. 4). Defendant agrees that applicant was MMI on July 12, 2023, when Dr. Hyman assigned him 75% WPI. (Petition, at p. 3:18-19; 4:1-6.) Then, defendant contends that permanent total disability payments should therefore begin on July 12, 2023. In our en banc decision, Brower v. David Jones Constr. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550, we addressed the timing of permanent disability indemnity payments in relation to payment of temporary disability benefits.

  The Board followed the en banc precedent in Brower, holding that permanent total disability indemnity payments start from the date permanent total disability is first established, not from the date the final level of disability is determined, thus payments start June 9, 2016, not July 12, 2023.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ17584970 · 2025-12-08 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2FACTS Applicant, while employed during the period of December 15, 1997 to January 26, 2023, as a deputy sheriff by the County of Fresno sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to the right kidney. He also sustained a second cumulative injury during the period of December 15, 1997 through February 24, 2023, in the form of bilateral inguinal hernias. (Minutes of Hearing (MOH) pp. 2-3.) The QME in this matter evaluated applicant for both claimed injuries on two occasions, August 24, 2023 and March 21, 2024. (MOH, 3:24-25.) The parties stipulated that applicant was not labor disabled at the time of either QME evaluations. (MOH, 4:7-8.) They also stipulated that defendant paid benefits to applicant at the regular temporary disability rate for August 24, 2023 and March 21, 2024. (MOH, 3:15-16.) Trial went forward on September 8, 2025 without any additional exhibits or testimony. The only issue presented for trial was whether applicant is entitled to section 4850 benefits for attending QME evaluations on August 24, 2023 and March 21, 2024. The WCJ issued an F&O finding in pertinent part that applicant is not entitled to section 4850 benefits for attending QME evaluations with James Sherman, M.D., on August 24, 2023 and March 21, 2024.

  Applicant was not labor disabled or on leave of absence at the time of QME evaluations and was paid temporary disability indemnity at the regular rate, so he is not entitled to section 4850 benefits which require incapacity to work or loss of salary.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12508262 · 2025-11-04 · Fresno District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Furthermore, the inconsistent, ambiguous and speculative characteristics of Dr. Mandell's MMI opinions are summarized in the following questions and answers during the 4/16/25 deposition. Page 15; 21 to page 16; 14: Q. Okay. The problem we're having is you previously testified that it would be reasonable to assign the P & S date to when she went back to work after this procedure just as you did in the 2023 report but now we're back to the one-year status. So I'm a little confused as to what we're going off of to make that decision and is it within a reasonable medical probability? A. Well, I was being abundantly cautious when I said that she was permanent and stationary when she returned to work because obviously, she's back at work, she's not disabled anymore, and so that makes that clear. But if if you want to be more granular about this and zoom in a little more rather than taking the the very high-level views, the one year permanency date is the correct one. Q. In general? A. Yes.

  The Appeals Board found the applicant's permanent and stationary date to be 7/17/20 based on the unequivocal opinion of Dr. Fletcher and rejected the ambiguous and speculative MMI opinion of Dr. Mandell. Therefore, the defendant is not entitled to credit for any temporary disability overpayment.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16819535 · 2025-02-21 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Accordingly, we will grant the Petition, and, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&A and substitute findings that defer the issues of temporary disability and attorney's fees; and we will return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

  The issue of temporary disability and attorney's fees was deferred due to defendant being deprived of due process by admission of a medical report after discovery closed, requiring further discovery and hearing.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ15599962 · 2024-11-26 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9In this matter, it is true that applicant continued to conduct discovery with his IME after the termination of the ADR agreement. (Exhibit H, Invoice, May 15, 2021; Exhibit I, Report of Eduardo Lin, July 14, 2021; Exhibit S, Medical Cover Letter, July 13, 2021, Exhibit T, Notice of Deposition, April 26, 2021.) [...] In light of the overall record as described above, we are persuaded that the preponderance of evidence establishes that the parties in this case must continue using IMEs as mandated by the ADR agreement. We will amend the Findings of Fact dated April 21, 2022 to rescind the WCJ's findings that that defendant waived the argument that the IME process described in the ADR agreement controls the medical-legal process herein, and that special circumstances exist that render it unjust to enforce the provisions of the ADR contract regarding the usage of IMEs. We will replace those findings with our findings to the contrary, and we will add our own finding that resolves the issue presented at trial, i.e., the parties shall continue using IMEs pursuant to the ADR agreement.

  The Appeals Board found that the preponderance of evidence supports continuing the use of IMEs as mandated by the ADR agreement, rescinding the WCJ's contrary findings and rejecting the argument that it would be unjust to enforce the ADR provisions regarding IMEs.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ11385337 · 2024-11-07 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact and Award issued and served by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on July 31, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) during the period through April 24, 2019 to her bilateral shoulders, neck, bilateral elbows, wrists, hands, and low back. The WCJ further found that her injury caused permanent disability of 100%, because she is precluded from employment in the open labor market, and that this resolves applicant's petition to reopen case number ADJ8045352.

  The Appeals Board found that the record was insufficient to support the WCJ's finding of 100% permanent total disability without proper apportionment under Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664, and that further development of the record was necessary to determine apportionment between multiple industrial injuries.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10755277 · 2024-05-20 · Salinas District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant, acting in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 7, 2024, whereby the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her neck (with headaches), bilateral shoulders, gastroesophageal reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, and psyche. The F&O also denied applicant's Petition to Reopen for New & Further Disability under Labor Code section 5410, where applicant failed to show that she suffered any "new and further" disability or compensable consequence disability related to her original injury. The WCJ also found that applicant's claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations set forth in Labor Code section 5410.

  The WCJ found no new and further disability within five years of the original injury and barred the claim by the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision for further review of the merits and record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12430442 · 2024-04-22 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on July 12, 2021, wherein the WCA found that applicant was not entitled to temporary disability indemnity arising from his prostate surgery based upon Labor Code section 48531 as well as an August 22, 2017 stipulated agreement between applicant and his employer in conjunction with his industrial disability retirement (IDR).

  The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and lacking proper evidence to support the denial, requiring further proceedings for a proper record and due process.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15490866 · 2023-10-06 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4The matter proceeded to trial on June 15, 2023, with applicant and Captain Eric Smith testifying. The sole issue for trial was whether applicant catching covid-19 while out on administrative leave at 24 Hour Fitness, was AOE/COE.

  Applicant had a reasonable belief that going to the gym was expected by the employer and that belief was objectively reasonable, supported by testimony and facts that officers are required to maintain physical fitness and the gym was paid for by the employer.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11930165 · 2023-08-07 · Bakersfield District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3medical evidence. The reports do not describe in detail how non-industrial factors are contributing to applicant's permanent impairment. While we understand that non-industrial obesity may be contributing to applicant's condition, Dr. Assil does not sufficiently explain how obesity is contributing to the permanent impairment. Additionally, even assuming age in and of itself could be a basis for apportionment, there is insufficient explanation regarding how applicant's age (rather than activities or conditions during applicant's lifetime) have contributed to degeneration and how this degeneration has contributed to applicant's permanent impairment.

  Dr. Assil's apportionment opinion was conclusory and lacked sufficient explanation, thus not substantial medical evidence; defendant did not meet burden of proof for apportionment, entitling applicant to a non-apportioned permanent disability award of 44%.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14275855 · 2023-01-20 · Salinas District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 24, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that pursuant to Administrative Director rule 979, qualified medical examiner (QME) Rex Lockwood, D.C., is entitled to additional advanced payment of a minimum of two hours for his deposition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11764709 · 2022-03-01 · San Bernardino District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, as our decision after reconsideration, we rescind the F&O and substitute a new F&O, which defers the issue of whether applicant sustained a psychiatric injury and to other body parts in case number ADJ11764709 (Finding of Fact 1) and the issue of whether applicant sustained injury in case number ADJ11764709 (Finding of Fact 2); finds that based on the record, defendant did not meet its burden under Labor Code section 3208.3(h) to show that compensation was barred; defers all other issues; and orders further development of the record per the orders of the WCJ. We return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to determine injury AOE/COE and deferred the issue for further development, rejecting the substantiality of QME Ghannam's and treating psychologists' reports as evidence.

  Official decision · page 9 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
• Acclamation Insurance Management Services
• ACCLAMATION
• ACCLAMATION MANAGEMENT INSURANCE SERVICES
• ACCLAMATION INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
• ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
• ACCLAMATION 802108 SANTA CLARITA
• ACCLAMATION SACRAMENTO
• Acclamation 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 claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.