Next Level Administrators

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 6
• Van Nuys 4
• Anaheim 3
• Marina del Rey 3
• Sacramento 3
• Long Beach 2
• San Diego 2
• Oakland 1
• Pomona 1
• Redding 1
• Riverside 1
• Stockton 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 applicant
• 12 for the defense
• 4 returned for more record

Counted over 28 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ20695668 · 2026-06-12 · Redding District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.8The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].)

  The WCAB found the record insufficient to fairly determine the applicant's average weekly wage or earning capacity, deferring the issue for further evidentiary development.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ20228986 · 2026-05-11 · Anaheim District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8We now turn to the issue of whether lien claimant met the burden to show injuryn AOE/COE.

  The Appeals Board found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE based on applicant's credible account, Dr. Haghighinia's medical opinion linking the injury to work, and the lack of contradictory evidence from defendant's witness who was not present at the injury.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ16963666 · 2026-04-13 · San Diego District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by not issuing a replacement panel in the field of orthopedic surgery and by not deeming inadmissible the medical reporting of the panel qualified evaluator (PQME), James Esch, M.D.

  The Appeals Board found no evidence that Dr. Esch's license was suspended or revoked, only that it was delinquent due to unpaid renewal fees, which was remedied before the decision date, so the replacement panel was not justified and the PQME reports were admissible.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19040269 · 2026-04-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, it appears to be uncontested that applicant refused or abandoned an offer of modified work. The relevant inquiry in this matter is whether applicant's refusal or abandonment of modified work was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Here, the WCJ did not analyze this issue.

  The WCJ did not analyze whether the applicant reasonably refused or abandoned suitable modified work, which is necessary to determine entitlement to temporary disability indemnity. The WCAB found the record insufficient and remanded for further development including QME reporting on disability and work restrictions.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13475083 · 2025-02-28 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, the parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum wage earner on March 11, 2024, after the parties were ordered to develop the record on applicant's earnings. (Minutes of Hearting dated March 11, 2024, p. 2:7.) Although the issue of earnings was still an issue for trial, as the WCJ points out (Report, p. 7), there is no record that defendant moved to be relieved from such stipulation and section 5702 does not permit the WCJ to find contrary to the stipulation absent a hearing and an opportunity for the parties to be heard on this issue. The record does not show a hearing or trial past March 11, 2024. Instead, the record is full of petitions for reconsideration followed by multiple orders vacating and amending Findings and Awards, with the same judicial determination that applicant is not a maximum earner and only clerical changes on the amount of applicant's earnings. This is not permitted absent a full hearing on why the stipulation should be set aside. More importantly, the record does not show that defendant sought to set aside the stipulation.

  The parties stipulated that applicant was a maximum earner, and the WCAB held that the stipulation could not be set aside without a hearing, so the finding of maximum earnings was affirmed.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12047380 · 2024-11-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1In the Findings and Order of April 20, 2021, the workers' compensation judge ("WCJ") found that applicant was employed by "Baron HR," and not by "Trion Solutions," in connection with applicant's claims that he sustained industrial injury to various body parts on February 22, 2019 (ADJ12047380) and during the period January 6, 2014 through February 22, 2019 (ADJ12048111). The WCJ also found that there was general-special employer relationship between "Baron HR LLC" as the general employer and "O'Tasty Food, Inc." allegedly insured by Falls Lake Insurance, administered by Sedgwick - as the special employer. In addition, the WCJ disallowed admission of Exhibits B and G into evidence, and the WCJ ordered Falls Lake Insurance ("Falls Lake"), the alleged insurer of special employer "O'Tasty Food, Inc.," to administer applicant's claims of injury.

  The WCJ's findings on employment and administration were incomplete, inconsistent, and included issues not raised at trial, raising due process concerns. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings to clarify the employment relationship and administration issues.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16177467 · 2024-07-15 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ found applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning her employment with both Seenager and Pacifica. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that QME Dr. Murphy found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury as a result of repetitive standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, squatting and lifting for both employers. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5-6.) The Report further notes applicant's testimony that her work activities for Pacifica were "not significantly more or different than the ones for Seenager...she lifted people, not packages, the weights were equivalent; and 90% of her work required that she be on her feet." (Report, at p. 4.) Based on applicant's testimony, the description of her job duties and physical requirements of both positions, as well as the QME's causation analysis, the WCJ determined there to be but one cumulative injury spanning both employments. (Finding of Fact No. 1; Opinion on Decision at pp. 5-6.)

  The WCJ found and the Board concurred that the applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning employment with both employers, supported by QME Dr. Murphy's report and applicant's testimony about similar job duties.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ18205051 · 2024-06-17 · Anaheim District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports the finding that applicant failed to comply with AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C).

  Applicant's proof of service did not show service of all required documents under AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C); thus, the QME panel was invalid.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ16359966 · 2024-04-23 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Shortly before the scheduled end of the lunch break at 3:00 a.m., an automobile collided into the bus stop where Gus, Giovanni, and the Applicant were waiting. (MOE/SOE Dec 5, 2023, pg. 6, lines 3; 8-10.) As a result of this incident, the Applicant alleged to have sustained injuries to his legs, head, neck, hips, left hand, left middle finger, left ring finger, right knee, right ankle, left ear, vision, psyche, and in the form of loss of consciousness and depression. (Id., pg. 2, lines 5-9.)

  The WCJ and WCAB found the injury was within the special risk exception to the going and coming rule because the applicant was waiting for employer-provided transportation and engaged in reasonable activities within the field of risk created by the employment.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16112899 · 2023-07-11 · Sacramento District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the contents of the Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will amend the March 28, 2023 F&O to find that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event (Finding 5) and that applicant's claim of injury to her psyche is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Otherwise, we will affirm the March 28, 2023 F&O.

  The Board found that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event, thus the applicant's psychiatric injury claim is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The applicant's credible testimony and expert medical opinions supported causation and compensability.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12981125 · 2022-04-12 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Applicant further contends that the Amended Award should include an award for further medical treatment to the body parts found to be industrial in the July 21, 2021 Findings of Fact. (Petition, at 6:15.) The WCJ's Report responds that the issue raised by the parties for trial was whether applicant was entitled to medical treatment if the psychiatric injury did not meet the "sudden and extraordinary" exception to the 6-month employment rule of section 3208.3(d). However, because the Findings of Fact established that applicant's injury was sudden and extraordinary, and the psychiatric injury was compensable, the issue was rendered moot. While we agree with the WCJ's analysis of the issue under section 3208.3(d), we also observe that there is no dispute that applicant sustained injury to the right eye, hearing, and psyche, and that the record demonstrates the need for medical treatment to cure or relieve from the injury. (July 21, 2021 Findings of Fact, Finding No.

  The psychiatric injury was compensable and sudden and extraordinary; medical treatment was found necessary and included in the amended award.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11714452 · 2022-03-21 · Long Beach District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3consideration appears to be whether the alleged special employer exercises control over the details of [an employee's] work. Such control strongly supports the inference that a special employment exists.' (McFarland v. Voorheis-Trindle Co., supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 705; Oxford v. Signal Oil & Gas Co., supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at p. 408; Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 922.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we agree that both Baron HR and Source Logistics had the right to control applicant and exercised that control and that they both benefited from the arrangement. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)

  The WCJ's findings that both Baron HR and Source Logistics exercised control over the applicant and benefited from the employment arrangement were given great weight and supported by credible testimony and evidence, establishing a joint general and special employment relationship.

  Official decision · page 3 →

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.

• NEXT LEVEL ADMINISTRATORS
• Next Level Administrators
• Next Level Folsom
• NEXT LEVEL ADMINISTRATORS, LLC
• NEXT LEVEL FOLSOM
• NEXT LEVEL

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.