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. ADJ6467730
Regular
May 14, 2019

SAMUEL JACKSON vs. BAY PHOTO LAB, MID CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Samuel Jackson claiming permanent and total disability due to a work injury to his back, psyche, and other body parts, which his employer's insurer, Mid Century Insurance Company, contested. After the Administrative Law Judge initially awarded permanent total disability, the insurer petitioned for reconsideration. The parties subsequently submitted a Compromise and Release agreement for $657,813.60, which the Appeals Board has approved. The Board rescinded the prior award and approved the settlement, finding it adequate and in the applicant's best interest.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleasePermanent Total DisabilityFindings Award and OrderLabor Code Section 5001WCAB Rule 10882Labor Code Section 5002Medicare Set AsideAnnuity
References
Case No. ADJ1805281 (SRO 0129031) ADJ2019182 (SRO 0129032)
Regular
Jul 26, 2012

SANDRA MALVESTI vs. ROUND VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior order regarding attorney's fees. The Board is returning the case to the trial level to investigate allegations that the applicant's attorney engaged in unprofessional conduct to secure the applicant's consent to his fee request. If these allegations are not found credible, fees should be calculated based on the full settlement value, including Medicare Set-Aside funds, as established in prior case law. A new determination on attorney's fees will be issued after further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSandra MalvestiRound Valley Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesAttorney's FeesReconsiderationCompromise and Release AgreementMedicare Set-Aside TrustCumulative Trauma InjuriesPetition to Reopen
References
Case No. VNO 339040
Regular
Jul 07, 2008

ROBERT O'ROURKE vs. HYDRO WEST, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed before any final order was issued. The defendant's petition for removal, which alleged denial of due process and judicial bias, was denied as the WCAB adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge. The WCAB also directed further requests for relief, such as reopening the record or additional attorney fees, to the trial level judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDue ProcessBiasCompromise and Release AgreementContinuing JurisdictionFinal OrderWCJLien Claimant
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