Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE2
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58131

Where they appear

• Riverside 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Anaheim 2
• Pomona 2
• Lodi 1
• Sacramento 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.

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

Counted over 10 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.

• ADJ20172102 · 2026-05-15 · Lodi District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Here, as explained above, the notice of hearing for November 19. 2025 did not identify the hearing as an in person hearing, so that a failure to appear in person cannot be the basis for the NIT. Moreover, the initial NIT in the MOH of November 19, 2025 indicated an intent to sanction "David Jane & Associates." The later Order for sanctions actually sanctioned both David Na and David Jane & Associates. The inclusion of David Na should have triggered a new notice of intent as it includes, for all intents and purposes, a separate party. As result, the order is null and void as the precipitating notice did not include both parties and therefore, they were not given notice and opportunity to be heard.

  The WCAB found that the notice of hearing did not clearly require in-person appearance or identify Mr. Na as required to appear, and that due process was not satisfied. The record did not demonstrate bad faith or support the sanctions imposed.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ19392643 · 2026-01-30 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Finding of Fact issued on October 23, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found that applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his low back, neck, left shoulder, left hand, and left wrist with additional parts of body deferred and jurisdiction reserved with the WCAB; the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is August 15, 2019; and compensation for applicant's injury is not barred by section 3600(a)(10).

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in limiting the date of injury to August 15, 2019, and in the application of the post-termination bar under section 3600(a)(10), warranting reconsideration and further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17378619 · 2025-03-24 · Riverside District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, based upon our review of the record, including the reports of Dr. Fenison, it appears that although diagnostics and records from Dr. Montgomery and Central Occupational Medicine Providers were provided to Dr. Fenison for review, none of the reports from Dr. Rho or Inland Interventional Medical Associates were provided, or if provided, were not reviewed. In light of this, Dr. Fenison's reporting appears to be incomplete.

  The panel found that the QME's reports were incomplete as they did not include review of updated medical records from Dr. Rho documenting complex regional pain syndrome, thus the record was insufficient to support the denial of permanent disability and further development was required.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15137561 · 2024-03-13 · Sacramento District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.21.) The WCJ ordered the matter off calendar over defense objection. The WCJ further appended to the Minutes a list of the various assertions of defendant with respect to the standing of the parties, and the applicability of the statute of limitations. (Id. at p. 2.) On May 24, 2023, defendant filed the instant Petition for Removal (Petition) averring threshold issues of the identity of the parties claiming benefits, their standing, if any, and the need to adjudicate the issue of whether compensation is barred by the running of the statute of limitations. Defendant contends the August 6, 2021 Application for Adjudication was filed after decedent's date of death, and was not signed by decedent. Defendant therefore asserts that applicant's counsel lacks the standing to file the August 6, 2021 application, and that there is no "party" identified in the record as claiming benefits. Defendant further avers that the application for death benefits filed on December 21, 2021, was filed more than one year from the date of death

  The Appeals Board found ambiguity and lack of clarity in the pleadings regarding the identity of the applicant and standing, and the applicability of the statute of limitations, warranting further proceedings to clarify these threshold issues.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ15208194 · 2026-06-04 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ decision, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings on the proposed settlement.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20494640 · 2026-04-24 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5As the moving party, applicant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he should be relieved from the C&R entered into with defendant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence"].) However, because no hearing was held, the WCJ did not have the opportunity to assess applicant's arguments or evidence. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate applicant's contentions and the Petition is premature.

  The petition was dismissed as premature because no hearing was held to admit evidence or assess applicant's contentions, thus due process was not satisfied and the record was incomplete.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ2876196 · 2026-03-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeOther disputed issuemixed

  Determinative passage · p.8For the reasons set forth above, we amend the decision to defer the issues of permanent disability and attorney fees, and the issue of a credit against temporary or permanent disability indemnity to pay attorney fees (Finding of Fact 11, Award a, b), and otherwise affirm the decision.

  The WCJ's original permanent disability award was affirmed except that the issues of permanent disability and attorney fees were deferred for further development and consideration of vocational expert evidence under the standards set forth in Nunes and Valdovinos.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ17796698 · 2026-01-12 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ rescinded the Dismissal Order within the 15-day period, rendering the Petition moot. Since jurisdiction has been transferred to the Appeals Board, the Petition for Reconsideration will be dismissed. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961(b).) Applicant's Amended Petition will also be dismissed as moot, since it was filed after the Order Rescinding, and thus challenges an order that no longer exists.

  The WCJ rescinded the dismissal order within the 15-day jurisdiction period, rendering the petition moot, and the Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and amended petition as moot.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ2186885 · 2025-10-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant1 has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on August 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ deferred applicant's request for an election.

  The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining the need for further development violated due process, constituting irreparable harm, thus removal was proper.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20307046 · 2025-04-01 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition as premature and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the WCJ may treat the Petition as a petition to set aside the OACR and conduct further proceedings and create a record. The WCJ may also consider the issue of whether medical-legal reporting is necessary in order to have an adequate record.

  The petition was dismissed as premature because the Appeals Board had not yet acted within the 60-day period after transmission of the case to the Appeals Board, and the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to consider setting aside the OACR.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16974657 · 2024-03-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).)

  The petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision, beyond the allowed time limit, which is jurisdictional and mandatory.

  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.

• LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
• LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
• Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation
• Liberty Insurance Corporation

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.