National Interstate Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE3
• Statute of limitations2
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141

Where they appear

• Bakersfield 2
• Fresno 2
• Santa Ana 2
• Anaheim 1
• Lodi 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Diego 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.

• 4 for the applicant
• 4 for the defense
• 2 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.

• ADJ10155367 · 2025-10-27 · Marina del Rey District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814mixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 21, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that defendant's attorney's correspondence dated October 30, 2024 did not violate Labor Code section1 5813; defendant did not delay a qualified medical evaluator (QME)'s exam in ophthalmology in violation of section 5814; that there is no violation of section 5813 or section 5814 and that no attorney fees are to be awarded per section 5813 and/or section 5814.5; and that no costs or sanctions will be allowed against the applicant's attorney as a result of seeking a supplemental QME report from Dr. Weingarten and/or a supplemental additional panel in ophthalmology.

  The WCJ found no unreasonable delay by defendant in authorizing medical evaluations and no bad faith or frivolous tactics by defendant's attorney in correspondence; however, the WCAB deferred the issue of costs and sanctions against applicant's attorney for further findings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17382484 · 2025-10-13 · Fresno District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3the applicant, deceased, [], while employed on October 3, 2022, as a commercial truck driver at Porterville, California by Young's claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE of blunt force trauma to his head as a result of a motor vehicle accident resulting in death.

  The WCJ found the injury was not compensable under the going and coming rule, but the Appeals Board found no substantial evidence supporting that finding and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11997202 · 2023-03-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 23, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the Application for Adjudication of Claim (Application) was filed on January 9, 2019, more than five years after the date of injury, and that applicant's claim is barred by the five-year limitations period defined in Labor Code section 5410.3

  The WCAB found that the applicant's claim was timely filed within the tolled one-year limitations period under Labor Code section 5405 due to defendant's failure to provide required notices, which tolled the statute until the applicant gained actual knowledge of his rights. The five-year limitation under section 5410 did not apply as the injury claim was not previously resolved and no petition to reopen was filed.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11997202 · 2022-01-31 · Santa Ana District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 23, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the Application for Adjudication of Claim (Application) was filed on January 9, 2019, more than five years after the date of injury, and that applicant's claim is barred by the five-year limitations period defined in Labor Code section 5410.1

  The Appeals Board found that the Application was timely filed within the previously tolled Labor Code section 5405 one year limitations period, thus the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11110715 · 2021-08-30 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Having reviewed the trial record, including the reports from Dr. Schopler discussed above, it appears that the record does not contain substantial evidence upon which a finding on the issue of injury AOE/COE can be made. An award, order or decision by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (Lab. Code § 5903, 5952; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317-319 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635-637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) The

  The record does not contain substantial evidence to support a finding on injury AOE/COE; further development of the medical record is necessary to clarify whether the applicant sustained a cumulative injury as claimed.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12577928 · 2021-08-09 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Applicant alleged that on the date of his alleged injury he was unloading a truck

  The WCJ found the applicant's testimony credible and supported by medical evidence from Dr. John Lane, establishing the injury and its mechanism as consistent with the objective findings, thus meeting the burden of proof for injury AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ7603606 · 2025-12-22 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

  The WCJ's decision included threshold issues making it final and subject to reconsideration, but the petition only challenged interlocutory findings; the removal standard applies and petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18230397 · 2024-06-05 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on April 29, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner, and on May 29, 2024 a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an order taking the matter off calendar.

  Petition for Removal was withdrawn by petitioner and matter taken off calendar, making petition moot.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10649854 · 2023-08-11 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant National Interstate Insurance Company, the workers compensation insurance carrier for defendant LMS Transport, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on March 9, 2022. In that decision, the WCJ made findings and orders that the applicant is entitled to home health care in the form of LVN level care, as well as certified nurse's assistant care for 12 hours per day, 7 days per week.

  The Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues but ultimately rescinded the WCJ decision and remanded the matter for settlement consideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10920365 · 2023-02-13 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the decision issued on December 13, 2022 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the Petition for Removal, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7745966 · 2022-08-15 · Bakersfield 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.1 Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The WCAB panel found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and determined reconsideration was an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition.

  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.

• National Interstate Insurance Company
• NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
• NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE
• National Interstate Company
• NATIONAL INTERSTATE

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.