Markel Corporation of America

What they litigate

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

• Jurisdiction / venue3
• Sanctions under Labor Code §58132
• Apportionment1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141

Where they appear

• Oakland 4
• San Francisco 2
• Santa Rosa 2
• Fresno 1
• Pomona 1
• Redding 1
• San Bernardino 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 insurance carrier does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 8 for the defense
• 5 for the applicant

Counted over 13 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.

• ADJ17258260 · 2026-06-22 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration and/or removal of the "Findings of Fact and Orders" (F&O) issued on March 18, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that additional qualified medical evaluator (QME) panels in psychology and internal medicine were warranted and ordered the Medical Unit to issue additional panels accordingly.

  The WCJ found good cause for additional panels in psychology and rheumatology, which the Appeals Board upheld, denying defendant's petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• 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 →
• ADJ12656490 · 2022-04-11 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Applicant contends in his answer that there must be a dispute pursuant to section 4062(a) before proceeding with a medical-legal evaluation. (Lab. Code, § 4062(a).)4 Section 4062(a) outlines the process to object to a medical determination by a treating physician in order to trigger the QME panel request process per section 4062.1 (unrepresented) or section 4062.2 (represented). (Lab. Code, § 4062.1, 4062.2.) Section 4062.2(f) permits the parties to agree to an AME "at any time" and expressly prohibits a QME panel request per section 4062.2(b) where the parties have already agreed to submit an issue to an AME. In other words, the parties forwent the QME panel request process per sections 4062 and 4062.2(b) when they agreed to submit the issue to an AME. Therefore, we will grant defendant's Petition as one seeking reconsideration, rescind the F&O and issue a new decision finding that applicant remains bound by the agreement to use Dr. Shalom as an AME in neurology. The parties will be ordered to proceed with discovery utilizing Dr. Shalom. The new decision will retain the parties' trial stipulation to injury AOE/COE to certain body parts. (See Lab. Code, § 5702; see also County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].)

  The Appeals Board found that the parties remain bound by the AME agreement per Labor Code section 4062.2(f) which prohibits unilateral withdrawal from the AME agreement without mutual written consent, and ordered discovery to continue with Dr. Shalom.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ12656490 · 2021-11-04 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Although the decision contains a finding that is final, defendant is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision regarding whether applicant is bound by the AME agreement. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)

  The Appeals Board found that the statute does not allow unilateral withdrawal from an AME agreement and that the applicant remains bound by the agreement to use Dr. Shalom as AME.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ6890372 · 2021-06-16 · Santa Ana District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Labor Code section 4663(a) provides that "[a]pportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation." (Lab. Code, § 4663(a).) Section 4664(a) states that "[t]he employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by the injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment." (Lab. Code, § 4664(a).) The defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1114 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].)

  The defendant failed to provide substantial medical evidence to support apportionment; the AME's opinion was found speculative and not substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12002549 · 2021-04-13 · Santa Rosa District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10The requisite elements of a special/general relationship are unsubstantiated and lack evidentiary support in this case. In such a relationship, the general employer, or.TL Modular as asserted by petitioner, hires and pays the wages of an employee. Here, the applicant was clearly laid off from.TL Modular on June 29, 2018. (Def. Exh. GG.) Three days later, he started the woodshed job on July 2, 2018. (MOH/SOE p. 7, lines 41-42.) The hours worked on the woodshed were turn into Peter Luchetti, not JL Modular or any other company affiliated with Jeff Luchetti. (MOH/SOE, p. 7, line 18.) Luchetti Children's Trust rendered payment to the applicant for his woodshed labor. (Def. Exh. L.) No evidence was provided to show that the applicant was paid by JL Modular or any other Jeff Luchetti companies on August 1, 2018, the date of his injury.

  The court found no evidence of a general/special employment relationship between the applicant and Jeff Luchetti's companies at the time of injury, as the applicant was laid off from JL Modular before starting the woodshed job and was paid by the Luchetti Children's Trust, not JL Modular or any Jeff Luchetti company.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ8681155 · 2021-03-02 · Fresno District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2The touchstone of a fee awarded pursuant to section 5801 is reasonableness. (2 Cal. Workers' Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, March 2019 Update) Judicial Review, § 22.15.) The issue of reasonableness includes consideration of the fact that the fee must be based on services rendered in connection with the petition for writ of review. For instance, a reasonable fee does not include attorney time spent on "inefficient or duplicative efforts" or on clerical tasks. In such a

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ17258260 · 2026-01-09 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable

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

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13068071 · 2025-01-24 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Under Labor Code section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

  The petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of case transmission to the Appeals Board, and the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal rather than reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12631604 · 2022-06-13 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

  The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15764242 · 2022-06-06 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  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.

• MARKEL INSURANCE SERVICES
• Markel Corporation of America
• Markel Insurance Company
• MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY
• MARKEL SERVICE, INC.
• MARKEL INSURANCE
• Markel Insurance Services
• MARKEL SERVICES OMAHA
• MARKEL SERVICES

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.