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. ADJ1932035 (ANA 0234626) ADJ2673288 (ANA 0234627) ADJ4019770 (ANA 0234628)
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

Elmer Bourland vs. LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a prior order for a lifetime annuity of $900 per month. Defendant argued the original compromise and release agreement intended only a 15-year guaranteed payment period, not a lifetime annuity. However, the Board found the 1992 Order approving the settlement explicitly stated "lifetime annuity" and was not timely challenged by defendant. As no good cause such as fraud or mutual mistake was shown, the 1992 Order is now final and binding.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDELMER BOURLANDLONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTERTRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENTFindings and Orderlifetime annuityCompromise & Releaseindustrial injuryright kneeinternal system
References
Case No. ADJ558286
Regular
Dec 13, 2010

DEBORAH McCALLUM (Deceased) WINONA McCALLUM vs. AGRO-TECH LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a deceased worker's dependent seeking commutation of future annuity payments to a lump sum due to alleged financial hardship. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found that even though the judge's ruling on jurisdiction over the annuity company was flawed, the applicant's request was procedurally defective. Specifically, the applicant's interests are intertwined with his sister's, and their payments are managed by a guardian ad litem, preventing the applicant from acting independently.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJurisdictionAnnuity Companycommutationlump sumStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 5804Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR)dependency claim
References
Case No. ADJ2464522 (OAK 0338150)
Regular
Feb 19, 2013

CHARLES COWART vs. JACK IN THE BOX, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior award of penalties for unreasonable delay in funding an annuity. The Board found that applicant's own delay in providing necessary information was the primary cause of the annuity funding delay, thus not warranting a penalty. However, the Board affirmed a $10,000 penalty for the employer's unreasonable delay in paying applicant's attorney's fees, to be paid to the applicant, not the attorney. Attorney's fees for enforcing the compromise and release were deferred for trial level resolution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 5814PenaltyUnreasonable DelayAnnuity FundingAttorney's FeesReconsiderationFindings and AwardDecision After Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ2464522
Regular
May 06, 2013

CHARLES COWART vs. JACK IN THE BOX, INC.

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior Appeals Board decision. The Board previously rescinded one of two penalties awarded to the applicant for an employer's delay in paying settlement proceeds. The Board found the delay in applicant's net payment was due to the applicant's own failure to provide necessary information for an annuity purchase. Reconsideration is denied, reaffirming that the employer acted reasonably and the applicant's own actions caused the payment delay.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseUnreasonable DelayLabor Code section 5814AnnuityAttorney's FeesLabor Code section 5814.5Findings and AwardWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ8232177
Regular
Jul 03, 2018

CANDELARIO MANJARREZ vs. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, claiming it omitted a promised $15,000 lump sum with a 40-year annuity. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as premature due to insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims of mistake or fraud. The Board recommended treating the petition as a request to set aside the award, requiring a hearing to allow the applicant to present evidence. This procedural step is necessary before the Board can make a determination on the merits of the applicant's contentions.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulation with Request for AwardLump-sum paymentAnnuityPetition to Set AsideBaristaTemporary disabilityPermanent disabilityFuture medical careUnilateral mistake
References
Case No. ADJ1544610 (MON 0209957)
Regular
May 11, 2012

HILDA RUIZ-GUZMAN vs. EL POLLO LOCO; SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves a dispute over the adequacy of a proposed Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement for a worker with extensive injuries. The WCJ initially found the C&R inadequate, leading to Petitions for Reconsideration from both the applicant and defendant. The Appeals Board has scheduled a Commissioners' Conference to discuss the C&R, including the annuity rate, cost-of-living adjustments for future payments, the identity of the liable insurer, and the reasonableness of the proposed attorney fee, which appears to exceed statutory guidelines. The applicant's attorney must justify the $1.7 million fee based on specific factors.

Compromise and ReleaseStructured SettlementPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentAttorney FeeAnnuityCost of Living AdjustmentExcess Carrier
References
Case No. ADJ164815 (SAL 0049263)
Regular
Apr 01, 2020

Pamela McGowne Willoughby vs. Hoge, Fenton, Jones \u0026 Appel, American Home Assurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered an administrative law judge's (ALJ) disapproval of a Compromise and Release (C&R). The ALJ found the C&R unlawful due to an alleged assignment of liability, citing Labor Code section 4900. The WCAB clarified that while an injured worker cannot assign their claim, a structured settlement where a third party pays the insurer's obligation with the worker's consent is permissible. After reviewing the financial stability of the annuity provider, the WCAB found the settlement adequate and in the applicant's best interest, thus rescinding the disapproval and approving the C&R.

Compromise and ReleaseMedicare Set AsideStructured SettlementAssignment of LiabilityLabor Code Section 4900Matthews v. Liberty Assignment Corp.WCAB Rule 10700Financially SoundPeriodic PaymentsAnnuity
References
Case No. ADJ579864 (SAC 0353253)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

Marcia Pratt vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, SPECIALTY RISK PLEASANTON

This case involves a dispute over attorney's fees awarded in a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant's attorney sought reconsideration of a $15,000 fee award, arguing it was insufficient given the case's complexity and the settlement's value. The Board granted reconsideration, determining that the Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) funding should be excluded from the fee calculation. Ultimately, the attorney was awarded $21,752, representing 15% of the "new money" received by the applicant after excluding MSA costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Fee Finding and OrderCompromise and Release Agreementattorney's feelien claimantstipulated awardpermanent disabilitylife pensionMediCare Set-aside AccountMSA
References
Case No. ADJ3387227 (MON 0295804), ADJ340230 (MON 0359318), ADJ4438623 (MON 0359321)
Regular
Nov 15, 2013

CEDRIC LOWE vs. COAST PEST CONTROL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SEDGWICK CMS, CAL COMP INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order approving a $225,883.23 Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement. The defendant argued the C&R was procedurally defective and based on a mutual mistake regarding permanent disability advances. However, the C&R explicitly did not include a credit for these advances, and the inclusion of a Medicare set-aside made such a credit unlikely to have been agreed upon by the applicant. Therefore, the Board found no basis for reconsideration.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationMedicare Set-AsidePermanent Disability AdvancesMutual Mistake of FactAnnuityWCABWCJAdministrative Law JudgeLiquidated Insurance Company
References
Case No. ADJ2831208 (GOL 0090431) ADJ894034 (GOL 0090432)
Regular
Aug 10, 2009

JOSE LOPEZ vs. QUALITY PLASTERING, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant, Jose Lopez, was awarded a 25% penalty for the defendant's failure to pay the full settlement amount. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing they paid the amount agreed upon in the addenda to the Compromise and Release Agreement. However, the Board found the Orders Approving Compromise and Release, which specified a higher payment to the applicant, became final when the defendant failed to seek timely reconsideration. Therefore, the defendant's petition for reconsideration was denied, affirming the penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQuality PlasteringGolden Eagle Insurance CompanyJose LopezReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 5814PenaltyAttorney's FeeLabor Code section 5814.5
References
Showing 1-10 of 19 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