UEBTF

What they litigate

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

• AOE/COE1
• Jurisdiction / venue1

Where they appear

• Bakersfield 1
• Fresno 1
• Oakland 1
• Pomona 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.

• 3 for the defense
• 2 for the applicant
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ9098975 · 2025-05-16 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.16Finding of Fact, substitute new Findings of Fact, that find that applicant was concurrently employed as a Peace Officer, Occupational Group Number 490, by the County and the Reserve Association on May 4, 2013 while performing in a motocross demonstration at the 2013 Stampede Days and defer all remaining issues.

  Applicant was found to be concurrently employed as a Peace Officer under section 3362.5 during the motocross demonstration, and the County failed to rebut the presumption of employment or prove exclusion under section 3352(a)(9). The WCJ's finding that applicant was a professional athlete was reversed to Peace Officer classification.

  Official decision · page 16 →
• ADJ10531850 · 2025-03-17 · Pomona District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedeferred

  Determinative passage · p.12FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant born on ________, while allegedly employed on July 19, 2016 as a drywall installer, occupational group number 380, at 25771 Serenate Drive, Mission Viejo, California, by TIM CAGLE aka TIMOTHY HOWARD CAGLE, individually dba TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, and GREG AND BROOKE BAIRD, homeowners, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to the neck, arm, hand, knee and various body parts. 2. Applicant was employed by TIM CAGLE, individually dba TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, on the claimed date of injury. It is concluded the unrebutted evidence is that at the time of the claimed injury TIM CAGLE, individually dba TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, was uninsured. 3. The parties were denied an opportunity to cross-examine TIM CAGLE, and Exhibit "G" (letter from Tim Cagle dated June 6, 2016) is struck from evidence. 4. The homeowners, GREGORY and BROOKE BAIRD, are applicant's ultimate hirer for purposes of imposing workers' compensation liability. 5. The issue of whether applicant is excluded from being deemed an employee of the homeowners GREGORY and BROOKE BAIRD pursuant to Labor Code Section 3352(h) is deferred.

  The issue of whether applicant is an employee of the homeowners pursuant to Labor Code Section 3352(h) is deferred for further proceedings due to lack of sufficient record and misassigned burden of proof by WCJ.

  Official decision · page 12 →
• ADJ424792 · 2023-09-07 · Fresno District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Irrespective of these agreements, the parties proceeded to trial on July 10, 2018, framing the issue of clarification and enforcement of the Stipulated Award of January 8, 2008. (Minutes of Hearing, July 10, 2018, at 3:4.) The WCJ's September 7, 2018 Findings of Fact, Order, and Opinion on Decision explained that the original Stipulated Award provided was clear in its intended provision of benefits to be paid to the guardian ad litem until Destiny's 18th birthday. Based on this unequivocal language, the WCJ ordered that the UEBTF continue to pay the weekly death benefit to applicant until her 18th birthday, without regard to the commutation of attorney fees. (Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision, September 7, 2018, p. 2.)

  The record was not adequately developed to determine the appropriate weekly rate of payment; the WCJ's prior finding that all payments were made was not sufficiently explained and was rescinded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ6815109 · 2022-09-21 · Santa Ana 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 Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ3101200 · 2021-04-09 · Oakland 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. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny reconsideration. We also note the Petition for Reconsideration is skeletal and makes allegations of fraud and bias against the WCJ which are wholly unsubstantiated rendering it subject to dismissal or denial.

  The petition for reconsideration was skeletal, failed to substantiate claims of fraud and bias, and did not fairly state all material evidence, thus subject to dismissal or denial.

  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.

• UEBTF
• UEBTF OAKLAND

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.