CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. SRO 0107686
En Banc
Jul 27, 2004

Jose L. Martinez vs. Jack Neal & Son, Inc., Fremont Compensation Insurance Company, In Liquidation, California Insurance Guarantee Association, Cambridge Integrated Services, Inc.

The Appeals Board held that under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(8), as amended effective January 1, 2004, the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) is not liable for Labor Code section 5814 penalties awarded on or after that date for an insolvent insurer's unreasonable delay of benefits.

CIGAinsolvent insurercovered claimsLabor Code section 5814Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(8)unreasonable delaymedical benefitsen banc decisionprospective applicationstatutory exclusion
References
20
Case No. SRO 0107686
Significant
Jun 10, 2004

Jose L. Martinez, Applicant vs. Jack Neal & Son, Inc., Fremont Compensation Insurance Company, In Liquidation, California Insurance Guarantee Association, and Cambridge Integrated Services, Inc. (Servicing Facility), Defendants

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, holding that under the amended Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(8), CIGA is not liable for Labor Code section 5814 penalties for an insolvent insurer's delays on awards issued after January 1, 2004.

CIGAFremont Compensation Insurance CompanyLabor Code section 5814Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(8)covered claimsinsolvent insurerpenaltyunreasonable delaymedical benefitsen banc decision
References
18
Case No. ADJ1857578
Regular
Jun 23, 2009

MIRNA LICEA vs. MINSON CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for PHICO INSURANCE COMPANY in liquidation

This case involves a lien claim by Missirian Orthopedic Medical Group, assigned to KM Financial Services, for medical treatment provided to Mirna Licea. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), representing the insolvent insurer Phico Insurance Company, denied the lien based on Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), which excludes claims by assignees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the statute clearly prohibits payment to assignees, including medical providers who have assigned their accounts receivable. The Board relied on *Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. CIGA* for the principle that assigned claims are not "covered claims" under the Guarantee Act.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAPhico Insurance Companyliquidationinsolvent insurerlien claimantassigneecovered claimInsurance Code 1063.1(c)(9)
References
4
Case No. SRO 112972
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

STELLA JUAREZ vs. ARTERIAL VASCULAR ENGINEERING, NELSON STAFFING, CENTRE INSURANCE COMPANY by REM, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by BROADSPIRE for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) has the right to seek contribution from Centre Insurance Company for workers' compensation benefits paid to an applicant with a cumulative trauma injury. CIGA's claim is not barred by the one-year limitation period for employer contribution claims under Labor Code section 5500.5(e), as CIGA is not an employer and Centre is considered "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9). Therefore, the Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration and reversed the arbitrator's decision, awarding CIGA contribution from Centre.

CIGAContributionReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderLabor Code section 5500.5Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)Cumulative TraumaGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerOther Insurance
References
8
Case No. 2016-329 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

Spineisland for Chiropractic, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Spineisland For Chiropractic, P.C., acting as an assignee, against 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff sought to recover for services billed under CPT code 95831. The District Court of Suffolk County had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, asserting that the defendant had appropriately paid the plaintiff based on the workers' compensation fee schedule. On appeal, the Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision. The Appellate Term found that the defendant had adequately demonstrated the proper application of CPT code 95833 for the services billed under CPT code 95831, and the plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentCPT codeWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate TermSuffolk CountyAssigneeInsurance disputeChiropractic servicesMedical billing
References
1
Case No. STK 0142666
Regular
Jan 17, 2008

DAVID SOTO vs. ADVANCED PACKING & DISTRIBUTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION On Behalf Of RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant sustained an injury while employed by both a general employer (Remedy) and a special employer (Advanced). Remedy's insurer, Reliance, became insolvent, leading CIGA to assume potential liability. The WCJ found that Advanced's insurer, SCIF, provided "other insurance" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), thus relieving CIGA of responsibility. The Appeals Board denied SCIF's reconsideration, affirming that SCIF's policy constituted "other insurance" and that CIGA is a last resort insurer.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAReliance Insurance Companyliquidationspecial employergeneral employerother insuranceInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)covered claimsjoint and several liability
References
14
Case No. ADJ2398835 (LAO 0799123)
Regular
Mar 26, 2010

LETICIA FERNANDEZ vs. MOUNT ST. MARY'S COLLEGE, CONVERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY/SRS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SEDGWICK, INC., LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, VILLANOVA INSURANCE COMPANY

Converium Insurance Company sought reconsideration of a decision denying its claim for reimbursement from the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA). Converium had paid workers' compensation benefits to Leticia Fernandez, but later argued these payments were made in error due to applicant's denial of a specific injury. The Arbitrator recommended denying reconsideration, finding that CIGA statutes, particularly Insurance Code Sections 1063.1(c)(5) and (9), prohibit reimbursement to solvent insurance carriers for claims that are not "covered claims" or are made by assignees or subrogated parties. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the Arbitrator's report, denying Converium's petition for reconsideration.

California Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAConverium Insurance CompanySRSLegion Insurance CompanyVillanova Insurance Companyliquidationreconsiderationarbitrator's reportspecific injury
References
9
Case No. ANA 0366568
Regular
Aug 21, 2007

STACY MACK vs. CAREER STRATEGIES TEMP., INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE, SUN AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, TELEFLORA, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, remanding the case to determine if the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) policy for Sun America constitutes "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9). This determination is crucial for assessing the liability of the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), which seeks to avoid coverage by arguing the SCIF policy is available. The WCAB requires further proceedings to fully develop the record regarding the intent and applicability of the SCIF policy for special employees.

CIGAcovered claimother insurancegeneral employerspecial employerSuperior National Insurance CompanyState Compensation Insurance FundInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)Insurance Code section 11663joint and several liability
References
13
Case No. ADJ4684775 (VEN 0117727) ADJ4381820 (VEN 0117723)
Regular
Dec 19, 2011

JOANNE LUTZ, JOANN LUTZ vs. RUSSELL WARNER dba ROTO ROOTER SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for PAULA INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, and for FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, LINDA McDONALD, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior ruling, allowing CIGA to pursue reimbursement from State Farm for benefits paid due to applicant's industrial injuries. The Board found that unlike a request to alter a prior award, CIGA's petition sought to enforce its statutory right to reimbursement from "available" insurance under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9). Since State Farm, as a jointly and severally liable insurer, appears to be such "available" insurance, the case is remanded for further proceedings on CIGA's reimbursement claim.

California Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAPaula Insurance CompanyFremont Insurance CompanyState Farm Insurance Companystipulated awardreconsiderationreimbursementcontributionother insurance
References
15
Case No. MON 0271251 MON 0271252 MON 0271253
Regular
Jan 09, 2008

CONSUELO AMADOR vs. JIMWAY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns liability for an applicant's cumulative trauma injury where both Fremont Indemnity (represented by CIGA) and the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) provided coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed an arbitrator's decision, finding that SCIF, as a solvent insurer jointly and severally liable for the injury, constitutes "other insurance." Therefore, under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9), CIGA is not liable for the applicant's cumulative trauma injury.

CIGAFremont IndemnitySCIFcumulative traumajoint and several liabilitycovered claimother insuranceInsolvencyLabor Code section 5500.5Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 18,993 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational