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. ADJ9220592
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

LINDA MEISEL vs. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Kohl's Department Store's Petition for Removal. The Board found that the defendant's claim of due process violation was unpersuasive, as it is well-established that a judge must inquire into the adequacy of Compromise and Release agreements. The Board noted that the defendant had multiple opportunities to address the adequacy issues and that the upcoming trial on adequacy would provide a forum to present arguments. Finally, the Board ordered that the Pre-Trial Conference Statement be served on the applicant.

Compromise and ReleaseAdequacyPrimary Treating PhysicianPetition for RemovalDue ProcessPre-Trial Conference StatementWalk-throughOff CalendarSupplemental ReportReconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ7525233; ADJ7525240
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

Stephanie Ritchon vs. FREMONT MEDICAL CENTER, KAISER

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the trial judge's February 16, 2011 orders. The Board found that the trial judge acted prematurely and potentially inappropriately by suspending action on stipulations, threatening sanctions without a hearing, and making comments beyond her rulings. The matters are returned to the trial level for further status conferences to determine applicant's desires regarding further litigation, psychiatric claims, PQME waivers, and the adequacy of the proposed settlements. The Board also clarified that the need for rebuttal under *Guzman* and *Ogilvie* will be addressed after these preliminary issues are resolved.

Petition for RemovalPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleMilpitas Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman)Ogilvie v. City and County of San FranciscoWCJ ImpartialityPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Stipulations with Request for AwardOrder Suspending Action on SettlementStatus Conference on AdequacySection 132a Claim
References
Case No. OAK 0343209
Regular
Jun 20, 2008

SANTIAGO SANTOS vs. GHIRINGHELLI PIZZA, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the order suspending action on a proposed settlement was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board found the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the judge's concerns about settlement adequacy and the lack of a certified interpreter for the Spanish-speaking applicant. The case will return to the trial level for further proceedings on the settlement's adequacy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Suspending ActionCompromise and ReleaseAdequacy HearingInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderRemovalCertified InterpreterIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ234762, ADJ2358121, ADJ2518900, ADJ3669155, ADJ684024, ADJ806318, MON 0356645, MON 0356646, MON 0356647, VNO 0479411, VNO 0479412, VNO 0547904
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

DALILA CHOTO vs. LSG SKYCHEFS, LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order vacating a Compromise and Release agreement. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, holding that reconsideration may only be had of final orders, and the prior decision to vacate the agreement for further review of its adequacy was an interlocutory procedural order. The Board also emphasized its inherent authority to review the adequacy of settlement agreements. Additionally, the Board admonished defense counsel for using unprofessional and disrespectful language in the petition.

WCABReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderAdequacy of SettlementMedical LiensElectronic Adjudication Management SystemJudicial Authority
References
Case No. ADJ6827349
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

RONALD JOLLIFFE vs. THOMAS HYDRAULIC & HARDWARE SUPPLY, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to rescind the judge's order to correct a settlement agreement and increase Medicare Set Aside funding. The judge had suspended action on the Compromise and Release due to concerns about the settlement's adequacy regarding medical treatment costs and Medicare. The WCAB found that the judge had not yet determined the settlement's adequacy and therefore denied removal, returning the case for trial on that issue and other litigable matters.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseMedicare Set AsideCMS determinationSecond Order Suspending ActionWCJadequacy of settlementtrial levellitigable issuesSocial Security Disability Insurance
References
Case No. ADJ498505 (SFO 0420916), ADJ4168794 (SFO 0485699), ADJ6979901
Regular
May 15, 2012

DEBORAH ROLLINS vs. COUNTY OF SOLANO, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded a prior order, and canceled a trial date. This action prevents the relitigation of issues concerning the adequacy and applicant's competence to enter into a Compromise and Release agreement. The Board found that these issues were already decided with finality in a prior order that had res judicata effect. Therefore, the defendant would suffer prejudice by having to re-litigate settled matters.

RemovalCompromise and ReleaseAdequacyCompetenceReconsiderationFindings of Fact and LawLabor Code section 5803Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSua Sponte
References
Case No. ADJ234762, MON 0356645, ADJ2358121, MON 0356646, ADJ2518900, MON 0356647, ADJ3669155, VNO 0479411, ADJ684024, VNO 0479412, ADJ806318, VNO 0547904
Regular
Aug 20, 2013

DALILA CHOTO vs. LSG SKYCHEFS, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The WCAB granted reconsideration to review an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) where a C&R settled claims for $87,000. The applicant seeks to set aside the OACR and strike a clause stating the defendant is not held harmless for treatment outside the MPN, alleging its inclusion was a mistake. The Board vacated the OACR, returning the case for a hearing on the settlement's adequacy by a new WCJ. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the applicant signed the C&R acknowledging understanding and that inadvertence is insufficient grounds to vacate.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseMPNmedical liensinadvertencemistakeneglectvacateadequacy
References
Case No. ADJ6627328
Regular
Aug 16, 2010

MANUEL ALEMAN vs. TOWER CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise & Release (OACR) due to potential procedural issues regarding the timeliness of the applicant's petition and the adequacy of the underlying settlement. The Board found the petition timely filed as service of the OACR was not properly documented. Furthermore, there were significant deficiencies in the medical evidence available to assess the OACR's adequacy, particularly concerning the applicant's claimed injuries to the psyche, neck, back, and neurological system. Consequently, the OACR was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Order Approving Compromise & ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWCABWCJDismissal of AttorneyTimelinessService of ProcessAdequacy of Compromise & ReleaseMedical ReportsEAMS
References
Case No. ADJ6824470
Regular
Dec 17, 2009

ALEJANDRO ALVARADO vs. CHAMPION FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The appeals board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding an order that required the defendant to produce evidence to rebut a QME's disability rating. The matter was returned to trial to determine the adequacy of a compromise and release agreement.

Petition for RemovalOgilvie analysisScheduled Permanent Disability RatingDiminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC)Compromise and Release AgreementAdequacy of SettlementBurden of ProofQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Industrial InjuryWCJ Order
References
Case No. ADJ10012350
Regular
May 17, 2017

JAIME MEDINA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded its January 13, 2017 Findings and Award in this case. This action was taken because the parties have reached a settlement agreement. The case is now returned to the trial level for the Workers' Compensation Judge to review the adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is not approved, the previous award may be reinstated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSettlementFindings and AwardRescindedReturned to Trial LevelAdequacy of SettlementAdministrative Law JudgePermissibly Self-InsuredStatus Quo Ante
References
Showing 1-10 of 109 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