Zurich American 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

• Van Nuys 35
• Los Angeles 22
• Santa Ana 19
• Anaheim 16
• Oakland 14
• Riverside 11
• San Francisco 11
• Marina del Rey 10
• Sacramento 10
• San Diego 10
• San Bernardino 9
• Santa Rosa 8

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.

• 96 for the defense
• 88 for the applicant
• 34 returned for more record

Counted over 210 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.

• ADJ18031412 · 2026-06-26 · San Diego District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Medland Medical seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 6, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that, while employed as a Machine Operator/Packer, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her bilateral arms, bilateral hands, back, bilateral hips, and bilateral legs. The WCJ further found that the case in chief settled via Compromise and Release with an Order Approving issuing October 14, 2025; that lien claimant did not meet the burden of proof on the injury AOE/COE, such that the lien is disallowed in its entirety. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that lien claimant's lien be disallowed in its entirety.

  The lien claimant failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish injury AOE/COE based on the medical record and evidentiary record submitted. The ultimate conclusion of industrial causation was deferred to the Trier of Fact, and the WCJ found no sufficient evidence to support the lien claimant's claim.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14589712 · 2026-06-12 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Based upon our review of Dr. Stoller's reports, including the medical legal report dated December 12, 2024, Dr. Stoller reviewed medical records, took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. As such, we find that Dr. Stoller's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine. As explained by Dr. Stoller, applicant sustained a 6% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE category II due to loss of range of motion and pain as well as the injury's effects on applicant's activities and daily living (ADLs) including issues with standing and sitting. (Joint Exhibit 104 p. 27.) Applicant noted that he can tolerate sitting for sixty (60) minutes, standing and walking for two (2) hours, and lifting up to thirty (30) pounds. (Id. at p. 2.) Applicant also noted significant pain when walking up and down stairs and driving more than two hours. (Ibid.) We note that in his report dated August 1, 2025, Dr. Stoller confirmed that causation was due to the cumulative injury ending on October 25, 2018. (Joint Exhibit 105.)

  Dr. Stoller's reports were found to constitute substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine, including detailed examination, history, and explanation of causation.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13021836 · 2026-06-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration by defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period. In Case No. ADJ20509813, the WCJ found that applicant sustained

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to the excretory and reproductive systems during various employment periods, but the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on settlement approval.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ14142513 · 2026-05-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, we will affirm the WCJ's decision for the reasons stated in the Report. Although applicant's primary treating physician orthopedist Khalid B. Ahmed initially recorded a history of the injurious event that was slightly different than the one that applicant testified at trial, he reviewed several reports from the QME which included the correct history, but Dr. Ahmed did not alter his conclusions. It appears that the difference between moving awkwardly to avoid hitting a colleague and actually hitting the colleague was not a material difference. With regard to the issues of industrial injury to the hips, thoracic spine and cervical spine, we note that the QME did state that applicant's hips were exacerbated by the industrial incident but that any permanent disability was due to pre-existing conditions. (January 26, 2022 report at p. 2.) Dr. Ahmed acknowledged the pre-existing conditions but ascribed some causation to the industrial incident. (June 17, 2022 report at p.

  The WCJ's findings of industrial injury and permanent disability were supported by substantial medical evidence from the primary treating physician Khalid Ahmed, M.D., whose opinions were found more persuasive than the equivocal QME Dr. Wood's reports.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ18206391 · 2026-05-04 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.15Here, PQME Dr. McGahan's expert medical opinions are based on inadequate medical history and an incorrect legal theory and therefore are not substantial.

  PQME Dr. McGahan's opinions were not substantial evidence due to inadequate medical history and incorrect legal theory; record requires further development.

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ11987597 · 2026-04-28 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6A. The burden of proving apportionment of permanent disability falls on the employer because it is the employer that benefits from apportionment. (Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1560 [74 Cal.Comp.Cases 113]; Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1115 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc).) In Escobedo the Appeals Board held: (1) section 4663 requires the reporting physician to make an apportionment determination; (2) apportionment to other factors allows apportionment to causation, including pathology, prior conditions, and retroactive work restrictions; (3) applicant holds the initial burden to prove industrial injury and also has the added burden of establishing the approximate percentage of permanent disability directly related to the industrial injury; (4) defendant has the burden of establishing the approximate permanent disability caused by other factors; and (5) a medical report addressing apportionment may not be relied upon unless it constitutes substantial evidence. (Escobedo, supra, at p. 607.)

  The Appeals Board found that the AME's apportionment opinions were not substantial evidence due to lack of reasoning, but ultimately credited the AME's approximate apportionment percentages as meeting the burden of proof for defendant, leading to a grant of reconsideration and amendment of the award to 72% permanent disability without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12588331 · 2026-04-27 · Bakersfield District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10In sum, we believe there is substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE for the lumbar

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and neck supported by substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Graham and PTP Dr. Vanderhyde, and credible applicant testimony consistent with medical reports. The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no impeachable inconsistencies.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ18796354 · 2026-04-14 · Oakland District OfficeReopening / new and further disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration, and in the alternative removal of the Amended Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 2, 2025. In the F&O, the WCJ rescinded his October 22, 2025 decision in ADJ18796354 and ADJ18797375 and found in ADJ18796354 that applicant, while employed during the period ending December 1, 2023, as a tool and die specialist by defendant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to various body parts; and that the record requires further development in the form of further reporting or deposition testimony by the qualified medical evaluator (QME) Ryan Derby, M.D., "as to whether the bilateral upper extremities are part of the single cumulative injury he finds." With respect to both cases, the WCJ ordered further discovery with the QME Dr. Derby "with respect to whether the single cumulative injury he finds includes the bilateral upper extremities, including carpal tunnel syndrome, and if so, how and why he believes that to be the case" and he suggested "a QME re-exam to determine if the applicant's other injuries, as found by the QME are currently P&S and ratable." Finally, he ordered that all other issues were deferred.

  The WCJ found the record needed further development regarding the cumulative injury claim, deferring all other issues pending this development, and the Board denied reconsideration of this order as it did not irreparably harm the defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ2126841 · 2026-04-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Based on the above discussion, we find no reasonable basis to disturb the WCJ's findings as to the body parts of the left shoulder and chronic pain syndrome based on the well-reasoned Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) report of Jeffrey Berman, M.D., dated June 29, 2017.

  The WCAB found that the issues of injury to the left shoulder and chronic pain syndrome were not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel because they were not decided in prior proceedings and were supported by substantial medical evidence, including the QME report of Dr. Jeffrey Berman.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17517591 · 2026-03-03 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of November 14, 2025, wherein it was found that while employed on June 26, 2021 as a handyman, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right knee, right leg, left hip, and low back causing permanent total (100%) disability. as a maintenance technician, applicant sustained industrial injury to the right hand, right arm, and psyche, causing permanent total (100%) disability. In finding permanent total disability, the WCJ relied on the reporting of vocational expert Frank P. Diaz, who opined that applicant's industrial injury precluded applicant from vocational rehabilitation or from employment in the open labor market.

  The WCJ's findings of permanent total disability were supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Anderson and vocational expert Frank Diaz, whose reports were found credible and compliant with regulatory requirements. Defendant's due process argument for a rebuttal vocational report was rejected as untimely and unsupported.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ7404188 · 2026-03-02 · Long Beach Office District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7contested claim that would entitle it to medical-legal reimbursement under sections 4620 and 4621, and the Colamonico en banc decision. In his Opinion, the WCJ states that the claim was not contested because defendant accepted applicant's claim of injury to the low back and the claim of psych was subject to the six-month rule. We disagree.

  The WCAB found that a contested claim existed at the time the medical-legal copy services were provided, contrary to the WCJ's finding that the claim was not contested because the low back injury was accepted and the psych claim was subject to the six-month rule. The WCAB emphasized that the denial of the psych claim and the nature of the Compromise & Release settlement showed the claim was contested, thus entitling cost petitioner to reimbursement.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12781361 · 2026-03-02 · Los Angeles District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 19, 2025. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained admitted injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his lumbar spine, right arm/elbow, right knee, left knee, left foot/toes, and left lower extremity while employed as a carpenter on December 3, 2018. The WCJ further found that the injury caused permanent disability of 98% permanent disability.

  The WCJ found 98% permanent disability using the Kite/Vigil method for adding impairments, supported by vocational expert evidence. The WCAB panel found the record incomplete and granted reconsideration for further review.

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 42.

• ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
• ZURICH NORTH AMERICA
• Zurich American Insurance Company
• AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY
• Zurich North America
• American Zurich Insurance Company
• ZURICH
• Zurich American Insurance
• AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE
• ZURICH INSURANCE
• ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY
• ZURICH AMERICAN 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.