New Hampshire Insurance Company

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Anaheim 2
• Los Angeles 2
• Marina del Rey 2
• Sacramento 2
• Oxnard 1
• Riverside 1
• San Bernardino 1
• San Diego 1
• Santa Ana 1
• Stockton 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.

• 7 for the defense
• 5 for the applicant
• 2 returned for more record

Counted over 13 appealed decisions. Not this insurance carrier’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 insurance carrier is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ10642765 · 2026-05-18 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilitydeferred

  Determinative passage · p.9Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings of Fact that relate to the issue of new and further disability, and substitute a new Order that the issue of whether applicant has sustained new and further disability as alleged in her Petition to Reopen dated April 13, 2021, is deferred.

  The Appeals Board found the evidentiary record insufficient to adjudicate new and further disability and compensable consequence injuries, and thus deferred the issue for further development of the medical record.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10173387 · 2025-09-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The second finding of fact, that applicant was not injured by reason of any serious and willful misconduct of the employer defendant, Recess Holdings/First Group, is based on the vehicle inspection report admitted without objection as Defendant's Exhibit II, and applicant's testimony describing that report and her inspection and use of the vehicle that she was driving on the morning of her awarded work injury of August 30, 2015. According to the report, although there was an electrical short in the vehicle the previous day, the mechanic had said the vehicle was "OK TO DRIVE." Applicant and her employer were both equally justified in relying upon this representation in the report in assuming that the vehicle was safe to operate. This assumption proved

  The employer was justified in relying on a mechanic's inspection report that the vehicle was safe to drive, and there was no evidence of willful misconduct by a supervisory person with knowledge of the risk. Applicant did not meet the burden to show serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8063851 · 2024-11-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2As explained below, we will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ's decision to find applicant entitled to an unapportioned award of 77% permanent disability. Although we agree that there were no improper ex parte communications, after reviewing the record, we find that there is no substantial medical evidence of apportionment. We will affirm the WCJ's findings regarding applicant's average weekly wage.

  The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's calculation of average weekly wage considering breaks in employment and prior lower wages.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ9601706 · 2023-09-08 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant CVS Pharmacy (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on June 14, 2023, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the disability issues presented at trial were to be found in accordance with the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME).

  The WCJ's decision was found vague and ambiguous, failing to address all issues presented, including permanent disability and parts of body injured, and lacking a clear basis in law, thus failing to meet statutory requirements for findings and awards.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11175014 · 2022-01-24 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3We agree with Dr. Auerbach and the WCJ that Dr. DeSantis found that applicant had an industrial condition in his feet, and that Dr. Auerbach's analysis thus constitutes substantial evidence of industrial back injury and disability. Dr. DeSantis wrote in his report, "with reasonable medical probability, that this patient's right foot pain is a result of both a local foot strain, or plantar fasciitis, and also a component of radiculopathy." (April 6, 2019 report at pp. 19-20.) Dr. DeSantis never contradicted this initial opinion. At his deposition he expressly stated that he was unable to state with "reasonable medical probability" that there was no plantar fasciitis. (October 28, 2019 deposition at p. 24) Only when asked by the defense attorney whether there was "certainty" that

  Substantial evidence from QME Dr. DeSantis and Dr. Auerbach supported the finding of industrial injury to feet and back, with causation linked through altered gait and plantar fasciitis.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10902155 · 2021-12-06 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.20For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that reconsideration of the September 15, 2021 Findings and Award is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the September 15, 2021 Findings and Award is AFFIRMED, EXCEPT that it is AMENDED as follows:

  The Board granted reconsideration and amended the award to 87% permanent partial disability without apportionment, correcting an error in apportionment to a compensable consequence injury.

  Official decision · page 20 →
• ADJ7786647 · 2021-11-08 · San Bernardino District OfficePermanent total disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1applicant, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on November 13, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on January 17, 2011, as a truck driver by defendant, Covenant Transport, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the left shoulder, left arm, left wrist, lumbar spine, and psyche and consisting of drop foot, internal-digestive disorder and sexual dysfunction while employed on January 17, 2011, as a truck driver by defendant, Covenant Transport, then insured for workers' compensation liability by defendant, New Hampshire Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that applicant's injury caused need of further medical treatment and permanent partial disability of 90%

  Applicant contended injury caused permanent total disability, but WCJ found only permanent partial disability; reconsideration denied and matter remanded for settlement consideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9838694 · 2021-09-29 · Stockton District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 16, 2021 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the WCAB did not have jurisdiction to award new and further disability because applicant's Petition to Reopen was not timely filed and there is no good cause to allow tolling of the statute of limitations.

  Applicant's Petition to Reopen was filed more than five years after the date of injury, beyond the jurisdictional time limit, and no good cause for tolling or estoppel was established.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8117286 · 2021-04-07 · Santa Ana District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRmixed

  Determinative passage · p.5FINDINGS OF FACT 6. Applicant is entitled to reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment at the amount provided by the Official Medical Fee Schedule. The issue of reimbursement for self-procured care is deferred with jurisdiction reserved at the trial level.

  Applicant is entitled to reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment, but only at the amount provided by the OMFS, as defendant was not required to pre-pay or pay in excess of OMFS for authorized treatment.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9806382 · 2026-03-09 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.

  The WCJ's denial of the motion to allow testimony of PQME Dr. Cohen was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision, not a final order determining substantive rights or threshold issues, thus the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as not final.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ9800810 · 2025-06-13 · Sacramento District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.5On the existing record it is not possible to establish which injury, or injuries, caused the current need for treatment to the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder. Although medical care was awarded for body parts in both ADJ3318010 and ADJ9800810, it is necessary to determine the current cause of treatment for each body part.

  The Board found that the existing record did not contain substantial medical opinions to establish which injury caused the current need for treatment for the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder, and that further medical development was necessary before determining joint and several liability and administration of claims.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10616914 · 2025-05-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Removal 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 significant 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 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 WCAB found the petition did not meet the high standard for removal and that reconsideration was the appropriate remedy, so the petition was denied.

  Official decision · page 6 →

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.

• NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
• New Hampshire Insurance Company
• New Hampshire 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 insurance carrier is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.