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. ADJ6697300
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

Lorenzo Yanez vs. Universal Label Printers, Sparta Insurance Company, Employers Compensation Insurance Company

This case involves an insurance dispute over contribution liability for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant, Lorenzo Yanez, sustained an injury while employed by Universal Label Printers, with coverage from Sparta Insurance Company and Employers Compensation Insurance Company. A Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement was approved, which included an addendum purportedly allocating liability between Sparta (17%) and Employers (87%). Sparta sought to enforce this addendum for reimbursement, but the trial judge denied their petition, finding a lack of jurisdiction due to no separate petition for contribution being filed within the statutory one-year period. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding continuing jurisdiction to enforce the C&R and its addendum under Labor Code section 5803, and returned the matter to the trial judge to determine the enforceability and terms of the addendum.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ContributionLabor Code Section 5500.5Continuing JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5803Apportionment of Liability
References
10
Case No. ADJ9641921, ADJ9640385
Regular
Mar 29, 2016

PAZ CORRALES vs. KIMPTON HOTEL AND RESTAURANT GROUP dba KHRG GOLETA, LLC, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) due to a problematic Addendum "A". Applicant contends Addendum "A" incorrectly settled their right to future attorney's fees and contains conflicting, unenforceable provisions regarding future claims and confidentiality. The Board found potential jurisdictional issues and inconsistencies with the law, returning the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the C&R should be set aside.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAddendum ALabor Code section 5710attorney's feesrescinded OACRevidentiary hearingmistake inadvertence excusable neglectunenforceable provisionsconfidential provision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Olczyk v. Verizon New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's ruling to preclude an independent medical examiner's report and its addendum. The preclusion stemmed from the self-insured employer's failure to file the report with the Board within the mandated 10 business days, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 137. The appellate court upheld the Board's decision, concluding that both the original medical report and its addendum were properly excluded due to noncompliance with the statutory filing requirements.

Independent Medical ExaminationMedical Report PreclusionWorkers' Compensation BoardTimeliness RequirementsMedical EvidenceAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewComplianceProcedural RulesSelf-Insured Employer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd.

Ronald Borsack (also known as Ron Bell) filed a breach of contract action against Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd., Sevenarts, Ltd., Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, LLC, and David Rogath. The defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and later jurisdiction under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Borsack claimed an oral agreement for a "finders fee" of five Erte artist proofs, which he alleged was memorialized in an addendum to a license agreement between Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts. The defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration as per the license agreement, while Borsack cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that diversity jurisdiction was absent as Borsack was domiciled in New York, the same as one of the defendants. However, the court determined it had federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act's Chapter 2, as the dispute involved an international commercial arbitration agreement. The court further concluded that Borsack, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and Addendum, was bound by its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for a stay pending arbitration and denied Borsack's motion to remand.

Breach of ContractArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryConvention on Foreign Arbitral AwardsRemand MotionStay Pending ArbitrationContract Interpretation
References
37
Case No. RIV 0027402, RIV 0064770
Regular
Jun 02, 2008

DELIA BEJARANO vs. Riverside Community Hospital, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY C/O BROADSPIRE CLAIMS SERVICES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE C/O BROADSPIRE CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the trial judge's decision, and remanded the case, finding no final agreement on settlement terms was reached between the parties. The applicant signed a compromise and release, but a subsequent addendum unilaterally introduced by one defendant, altering contribution and lien responsibilities, was not agreed upon by all parties. Therefore, no enforceable settlement existed, and the case was returned for further proceedings.

COMPROMISE AND RELEASEMANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCEADDENDUM CUNILATERAL MODIFICATIONMEETING OF THE MINDSSETTLEMENT AUTHORITYTENTATIVE AGREEMENTLIABILITY AND CONTRIBUTIONLABOR CODE SECTION 5001FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION
References
3
Case No. ADJ10330567, ADJ10509711
Regular
Jul 17, 2017

FRANCISCO SALAZAR vs. NATURE'S BEST DISTRIBUTION, LLC, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, TOKIO MARINE MANAGEMENT & INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB found the judge's order rescinding a compromise and release agreement was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the disputed settlement addendum. The defendant's argument that the rescinding order lacked substantial evidence was not addressed as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

WCABReconsiderationOrder RescindingCompromise and ReleaseJoint Order ApprovingPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJSubstantial EvidenceFinal Order
References
6
Case No. ADJ9942080 ADJ10381122 ADJ10260028
Regular
Apr 07, 2017

MARIO PADILLA vs. RIO FARMS, LLC, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether the defendant was entitled to a credit for $11,020 in permanent disability advances. The applicant argued against the credit, citing that the Compromise and Release explicitly stated "0.00" permanent disability indemnity paid and did not include any deductions for such advances. The Board found the defendant's interpretation of the addendum ambiguous and against the explicit language of the settlement agreement. Therefore, the Board amended the award to permit credit only for permanent disability advances made *after* the date of the Compromise and Release.

Permanent disability advancesCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and Awardcreditaddendumsettlement negotiationscontract interpretationmutual intentionWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ7900836
Regular
Jul 24, 2012

JUAN MONROY CURIEL vs. NEENAH ENTERPRISES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order denying their petition to set aside a Compromise and Release agreement. The defendant argued the agreement contained a clerical error by not allocating funds for future medical care, thus violating Medicare Secondary Payer laws. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause to set aside the agreement. The Board noted parties may file an addendum to allocate settlement proceeds for future Medicare-covered expenses due to bona fide disputes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseSet Aside OrderClerical ErrorMedicare Secondary PayerFuture Medical CareAllocation of SettlementBona Fide Dispute
References
3
Case No. ADJ7096356
Regular
Jul 07, 2017

DAVID MARQUEZ vs. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied David Marquez's petition for reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release settlement. Marquez sought to set aside the settlement, alleging mutual mistake regarding the resolution of Section 5710 fees and a Civil Code Section 1542 release. The Board found no evidence of good cause for rescission based on mutual mistake, affirming the WCJ's report. However, the Board noted a separate petition to set aside the addendum and remanded it for a hearing to allow Marquez to present evidence.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationMutual Mistake of FactSection 1542 Civil CodeSection 5710 feesOrder ApprovingWCJ ReportGood CauseStipulationsAttorney's Fees
References
8
Case No. ADJ10199969
Regular
Jun 13, 2017

RAYMUNDO FERNANDEZ vs. MBM CORP., ACE AMERICAN, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition to reconsider an approved Compromise and Release (C&R). The applicant claimed he did not understand that the settlement included waiving his Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim. The Board found that it was unclear if the parties intended to resolve the 132a claim, especially given the boilerplate language in Addendum B and the lack of inquiry into the applicant's understanding. Consequently, the Board rescinded the approval order and returned the matter to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing on the circumstances surrounding the C&R's execution.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationSet Aside OrderGood CauseRescind OrderWalk-through BasisAddendum BBoilerplate Language
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 25 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