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
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1988

Anzalone v. Traveler's Insurance

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied judicial approval for the compromise and settlement of a personal injury action under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the petition and approving the compromise settlement. The court found that the Supreme Court had improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the application. Key factors included the defendants' limited insurance coverage of $10,000/$20,000 and the difficulty the petitioner would face in proving

Workers' CompensationPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalCompromise SettlementInsurance Coverage LimitsSerious Injury ThresholdAppellate ReviewDiscretion AbuseLien RightsDelay Excusable
References
1
Case No. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1984

Kacprowski v. Sorro

This case involves a special proceeding under Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (5) where the plaintiffs-petitioners sought permission to compromise a personal injury action. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially granted their motion for leave to renew and reargue their application, subsequently granting the application to compromise the action. The Utilities Mutual Insurance Company and the Special Funds Conservation Committee appealed this decision, arguing the $22,500 settlement was inadequate and the permission to settle was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the resettled order, finding that the liability and damage questions in the underlying action, which involved a dog attack aggravating previous injuries and precipitating surgery, were problematical, thus concluding that the settlement grant was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjurySettlementCompromiseDog AttackAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionDamagesLiabilityAggravated Injury
References
0
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
10
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
1
Case No. ADJ19408921, ADJ19408487, ADJ19408920
Regular
Jun 16, 2025

Maria Vazquez vs. Holiday Inn Los Angeles Gateway, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America

Defendant filed a petition to set aside and reconsider an Order Approving Compromise & Release (OACR), claiming applicant's age and Medicare beneficiary status were overlooked in the settlement. The Appeals Board noted procedural irregularities regarding notice of case transmission and the absence of a hearing to establish a complete record concerning the Compromise and Release agreement's adequacy and Medicare interests. As a result, the Board dismissed the petition as premature and returned the matter to the trial level for a hearing to gather necessary evidence.

Order Approving Compromise & ReleaseMedicare Set AsidePetition for ReconsiderationMotion to Set AsideLabor Code Section 590960-Day RuleNotice of TransmissionWorkers' Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA)Good CauseMutual Mistake of Fact
References
18
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
10
Case No. ADJ10084051
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

LIDIO LEONEL TORRES vs. KML SERVICES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

CareMeridian, LLC, a healthcare provider, sought to set aside an approved Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) compromise and release (C&R) agreement that resolved the applicant's future medical care. CareMeridian argued it was an aggrieved party and was denied due process regarding payment for its services. The WCAB denied the petition, finding CareMeridian was not a party to the C&R and therefore not entitled to notice or a hearing at the time of its approval. Furthermore, the Board determined that CareMeridian lacked standing to challenge the C&R's adequacy, as the applicant and insurer had the statutory right to compromise their liabilities.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyStandingDue ProcessMedical Provider LienSkeleton PetitionNon-PartyNoticeOpportunity to Be Heard
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Green

This proceeding involves an uncontested application for leave to settle and compromise a wrongful death action stemming from a fire on December 4, 1980, which resulted in the death of the decedent, survived by a spouse and three children. The proposed structured settlement totals $5,650,000, comprising a cash payment and annuities purchased through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, designed to provide guaranteed periodic payments of $37,674,000. The court addresses several issues, including the propriety of attorney's fees, the allocation of annuity costs among beneficiaries based on the Kaiser formula, and potential modifications to equalize shares among the children. The court found the proposed allocation unacceptable as it granted the widow significantly more than her Kaiser share and penalized the children, and also identified drawbacks in the guardian ad litem's suggestion due to its impact on the youngest child from inflation and a substantial reduction in their Kaiser entitlement. The decision concludes by proposing modifications to the guardian's plan, including increasing annual support and adjusting shares between the middle and youngest child, and ultimately remands the matter for reconsideration due to the changes affecting the parties and the widow's annuity.

Wrongful Death SettlementStructured SettlementAnnuity AllocationPecuniary LossDependency PeriodBeneficiary SharesKaiser FormulaGuardian Ad LitemAttorney's FeesEstate Distribution
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 858 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