ProCentury 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
• Permanent disability rating3
• Liens1
• Medical treatment / UR / IMR1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141

Where they appear

• Sacramento 3
• Santa Rosa 3
• Fresno 1
• Oakland 1
• Oxnard 1
• Redding 1
• Riverside 1
• San Jose 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.

• 5 for the applicant
• 5 for the defense

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.

• ADJ18309914 · 2026-04-20 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5As summarized in the Opinion on Decision, applicant testified that on 4/06/2023, he was pulling a hose to get ready for an inspection when he stepped on a plastic pipe, slipped, and fell backwards landing on the ground. He testified he injured his leg, calf, and back. He testified he was carrying the hose on his left side, and that when he landed, it was in a twisted position on his left side. He testified he received treatment for his injury that same day with a doctor from Kaiser.

  The applicant's credible testimony, supported by medical opinions including QME Dr. the applicant's, established a compensable injury to the left calf and lumbar spine as a compensable consequence of the industrial injury, despite some medical reports lacking specific lumbar spine documentation.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13705745 · 2026-03-19 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingnot_reached

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award issued April 10, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, bilateral shoulders, and upper extremities, as a machine feeder, while employed by Capabunga. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 71% after apportionment.

  The defendant contended the record lacked substantial medical evidence to support the 71% permanent disability rating, but the WCJ found otherwise and the reconsideration was procedural, not on merits.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11656888 · 2026-03-09 · Oxnard District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1In order to further study the factual and legal issues in these cases, we1 granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Order of August 13, 2021, wherein it was found "applicant did sustain injury to her right foot and bilateral knees on an industrial basis." Previously in this matter, in a Findings of Fact and Order of September 6, 2019, the WCJ had found industrial injury to the right foot. Defendant sought reconsideration of the September 6, 2019 decision and in an Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration of December 2, 2019, we found that the record as it then stood did not support a finding of industrial injury, but we sent the case back to the trial level to afford applicant the opportunity to procure and present substantial medical evidence of industrial injury.

  Applicant did not present substantial medical evidence tying the work incident to disability or need for medical treatment; medical opinions based on incomplete or speculative history were rejected.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13806639 · 2025-10-06 · Fresno District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5We first turn to lien claimant's argument that because the WCJ awarded the full amount of costs and interest, an award of penalties was mandatory under Labor Code section 4622(a). We reject this argument and clarify that application of Labor Code section 4622 with respect to this lien claimant in this case is improper.

  The WCJ properly deferred the determination of penalties and interest because the lien claimant was not the medical-legal provider and due process requires an evidentiary hearing for penalties; interest was also premature to award.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11532204 · 2025-01-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11In summary, we agree with the WCJ that defendant has not met its affirmative burden of establishing a material change in applicant's medical treatment or circumstance that would otherwise require defendant to either authorize the requested treatment or submit the request to UR. Because there was no valid medical dispute arising out of a change in condition or circumstance, we concur with the WCJ's determination that defendant is obligated to continue to provide treatment in the form of home health care services, unless and until defendant demonstrates a material change in applicant's condition or circumstance.

  The WCJ and WCAB found no persuasive evidence of a material change in applicant's condition to justify termination of ongoing home health care. The treating physician's consistent recommendations and UR certifications supported ongoing medical necessity.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ10361114 · 2024-12-31 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Amended Findings, Award, and Orders with Opinion on Decision" (F&A) issued on August 20, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was 100% permanently totally disabled.

  The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence on Combined Values Chart rebuttal was not substantial and that vocational expert opinions improperly included medical conclusions. The Board deferred the permanent disability issue for further development of the medical and vocational record.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17674030 · 2024-12-30 · Riverside District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, lien claimant clearly met the burden of proving applicant's injury was industrial. Dr. Haghighinia's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence by taking an accurate and adequate history of injury and explaining how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. The WCJ faulted the doctor for using an incorrect pronoun in one portion of the report, however this is a common error seen across many medical reports and does not, by itself, warrant rejecting the entirety of the report. The WCJ further noted that the doctor found that applicant had no flexion or extension range of motion measurements of the lumbar spine. This appears to be a misreading as the doctor placed an asterisk in these sections and noted that applicant was having pain in these areas. Again, this is a relatively minor issue that does not warrant rejecting the doctor's finding of industrial injury. Finally, the WCJ noted that the primary treater did not review applicant's prior medical records; however, there is no allegation that any such records exist, or were otherwise obtained and not reviewed.

  Dr. Haghighinia's reporting constituted substantial medical evidence, taking an accurate and adequate history and explaining how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. Minor report errors did not warrant rejection.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ9385114 · 2023-02-03 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of November 10, 2022, wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending on May 19, 2014 as a stocker/cashier, applicant sustained industrial injury to her elbows, arms, thumbs, wrists and to her right shoulder causing compensable permanent disability of 77%. In finding permanent disability of 77%, the WCJ found that the applicant rebutted the scheduled whole person impairment rating in the AMA Guides pursuant to Milpitas Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837]. Additionally, in making her permanent disability findings, the WCJ applied Labor Code section 4663 apportionment, but did not apply Labor Code section 4664 apportionment to a stipulated Award of September 10, 1991 for a cumulative injury through April 8, 1989.

  The WCJ properly applied apportionment under Labor Code section 4663 based on Dr. Yung's opinion and rejected additional apportionment under section 4664 due to lack of substantial medical evidence proving overlap with the prior injury rated under a different standard.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17594229 · 2024-11-21 · Redding District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Removal of the Order Suspending Action on Settlement issued on September 28, 2023, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

  Petitioner withdrew the petition, so the petition was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13705745 · 2022-07-07 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Defendant, Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency, LLC on behalf of ProCentury Insurance Company, through their attorney of record, Louis Larres of Bradford Barthel, filed a timely, verified Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Findings and Award dated April 14, 2022.

  The panel found that the defendant failed to timely communicate the Utilization Review denial to the applicant's attorney as required by Labor Code section 4610 and Administrative Director Rule 9792.9.l(e)(3). The petitioner's argument of substantial compliance and estoppel was rejected. The panel adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14238444 · 2021-11-23 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION Removal 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); Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Additionally, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner

  The Appeals Board found that the quashing of the deposition subpoenas would cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, thus removal was warranted.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10106946 · 2021-07-08 · Sacramento 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, 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 Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

  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.

• PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY
• ProCentury Insurance Company
• PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, ADJUSTED BY ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC.
• Procentury Insurance Company
• PROCENTURY INSURANCE
• ProCentury 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.