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. ADJ634371
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

MARIA MORALES vs. UNIVERSAL FURNITURE, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a judge's decision regarding a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. The applicant argued her claim for internal injury was not settled by the C&R, as it was not explicitly listed in the designated paragraph. The WCAB found that the C&R, when read as a whole, did not resolve the internal injury claim, despite general release language. The Board rescinded the judge's decision, ruling the internal injury claim was not settled by the June 13, 2016 C&R.

Compromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationInternal InjuryCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryBody PartsDates of InjuryGeneral ReleaseRes Judicata
References
Case No. ADJ498505 (SFO 0420916) ADJ6979901
Regular
Feb 27, 2012

DEBORAH ROLLINS vs. COUNTY OF SOLANO

This case concerns applicant Deborah Rollins' petition to reconsider the denial of her request to set aside a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the original decision that the C&R, including a broad general release of claims, was valid and could not be set aside. Applicant argued the general release was boilerplate, she was unaware of its scope, and she was incompetent due to her medical condition. The Board found the general release enforceable based on the applicant's signature and her attorney's testimony that it was explained. The Board also found insufficient evidence of incompetency or grounds for unilateral mistake to invalidate the agreement.

Compromise and ReleaseGeneral ReleaseSet Aside AgreementLabor Code section 5803IncompetencyUnilateral Mistake of FactBoilerplate LanguagePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ 7552376
Regular
Apr 04, 2016

HECTOR REYES BARRERA vs. RCO REFORESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Hector Reyes Barrera sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that he settled his right to a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefits (SJDB) voucher in a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. Barrera argued he did not understand he was waiving this benefit and did not initial the relevant section. However, the C&R clearly stated the settlement amount included monies for the SJDB voucher, and the Order Approving C&R explicitly included SJDB in the release. Therefore, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Barrera settled his entitlement to the SJDB voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitsSJDB voucherCompromise and ReleaseC&RPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJwaivervocational rehabilitationentitlement
References
Case No. ADJ8882780
Regular
Jan 30, 2017

LOURDES LOPEZ vs. SODEXO as administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The defendant sought reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release, alleging a mutual mistake in settlement documents regarding a temporary disability overpayment deduction. The original judge recommended denial, arguing any error was unilateral as the defendant drafted the document. However, the Appeals Board found the petition timely filed and discovered the parties executed an amended Compromise and Release to correct the drafting error. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original order, and returned the matter to the trial level for the judge to consider the amended settlement.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationMutual Mistake of FactOverpaymentTemporary Disability IndemnityDrafting ErrorAmended Compromise and ReleaseRescindTrial LevelOrder Approving Compromise and Release
References
Case No. ADJ9120917, ADJ6899995
Regular
Sep 16, 2016

RICK STEIN vs. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH

The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order vacating a prior order approving a compromise and release was not a final order. The Board granted the defendant's petition for removal to amend the vacating order, specifying the matter should be set for a status conference. This action was taken under WCAB Rule 10859, allowing the WCJ to rescind an order and conduct further proceedings within 30 days. The case is returned to the WCJ to determine if good cause exists to set aside the compromise and release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder Vacating Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJLabor Code Section 132(a)Cumulative Trauma InjuryLeft Knee Injury
References
Case No. LBO 0375915 LBO 0375916 LBO 0375917
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

MARIA C. GOMEZ vs. ANGELICA TEXTILE, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, REPUBLIC MASTER CHEF, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior order approving a \$509 compromise and release for applicant Maria C. Gomez's cumulative trauma injuries. The applicant contended the settlement was based on a civil release signed under duress and that she lacked proper service of the documents. The Board found the applicant's allegations warranted further investigation, remanding the case for proceedings at the trial level.

Propria personaJoint Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseDelegated serviceCumulative trauma injuriesGeneral releaseCivil actionDuressPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationAbsence of evidence
References
Case No. ADJ2798524 (SBR 0296412)
Regular
Feb 10, 2011

JOHN NOTTINGHAM vs. 911 DESIGN, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a lien claimant, Arrowback Medical Group (AMG), seeking reconsideration after their lien for medical treatment was disallowed. The underlying workers' compensation case was resolved by a Compromise and Release (C&R) approved on March 28, 2002, which made the applicant responsible for all future medical expenses. AMG argued they were denied due process because they were not served with the C&R or the Order Approving C&R (OACR). The Board denied reconsideration, finding that all disputed medical services occurred after the C&R was approved, and the OACR clearly placed responsibility for future medical costs on the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise And ReleaseIndustrial injuryLeft kneeMandatory settlement conferenceOfficial Medical Fee Schedule
References
Case No. ADJ2344364
Regular
May 27, 2011

GILLIAN COOK vs. SINGAPORE AIRLINES, KANSAS CITY FIRE & MARINE, ALLIANZ, CHARTIS, AMERICAN MOTORS, et al.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement, alleging misrepresentation by her attorney regarding Medicare and Social Security benefits. However, the applicant's own declaration within the C&R stated she had not applied for and did not intend to apply for these benefits. The Board found no basis to set aside the OACR, as the applicant's declaration did not preclude future applications for these benefits. Consequently, the applicant was not aggrieved by the Order Approving Compromise and Release, and her petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseMedicare benefitsSocial Security benefitsAddendum Bundisclosed lettermisrepresentationsmeeting of the minds
References
Case No. ADJ10418270
Regular
Sep 09, 2025

Mahalia Wilson vs. Advanced Medical Personnel, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to examine the legal and factual issues surrounding a lien claim for attorney's fees. The initial WCJ decision had deemed the lien claim time-barred, citing the claimant's failure to object to a Compromise & Release (C&R) or timely seek reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR). However, the Appeals Board rescinded these findings, affirming that the lien claimant's previous actions, including filing the application for adjudication and the lien, provided sufficient notice. The Board also emphasized the WCJ's responsibility to identify and address all lien claims and clarified that a C&R agreement does not bind non-parties. The case is now remanded for further proceedings to determine a reasonable attorney's fee and identify the responsible paying parties.

Lien claimantAttorney's feesCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseTime-barredReconsiderationNoticeWaiverContract lawDue process
References
Case No. ADJ9474597
Regular
Jun 17, 2018

SERGIO TERRAZAS vs. SEAL SCIENCE, INC., THE HARTFORD, ADMINISTERED BY ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted The Hartford's Petition for Reconsideration concerning an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR). Hartford argued the original OACR incorrectly failed to deduct \$4,140.00 in permanent disability advances from the \$20,000 settlement. The WCAB rescinded the OACR, returning the matter to the trial level to determine if the Compromise and Release should be amended to reflect the advances. The WCJ will then decide whether to reinstate the original OACR or approve an amended one after further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseSet Aside OrderCompromise and ReleasePermanent Disability AdvancesOffsetRescindAlterAmendContinuing Jurisdiction
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,114 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