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. ADJ3293125 (SAC 0368540)
Regular
May 29, 2012

AMY ELDER SOUZA vs. MOTHERLODE HOLDING COMPANY, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE

This case involves a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially disapproved because it provided no benefit to the applicant while attorney fees were paid. Both parties petitioned for reconsideration, but the Appeals Board dismissed these as the disapproval order was not a final order. Treating the petitions as requests for removal, the Board rescinded both the disapproval and subsequent approval orders. The matter is returned to the trial level for the ALJ to determine the C&R's adequacy, specifically addressing the alleged overpayment of temporary disability.

Compromise and ReleaseDisapproved C&RReconsideration PetitionRemoval PetitionWCAB Rule 10859WCAB Rule 10882Future Medical TreatmentNew and Further DisabilityTemporary Disability CreditOverpayment
References
1
Case No. ADJ9718375
Regular
Feb 04, 2015

JACK MOFFETT vs. THE WINDOW WIZARD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the administrative law judge's (WCJ) order disapproving a compromise and release agreement. The WCJ had disapproved the settlement based on perceived inadequacy of medical evidence and lost wages, without first addressing the threshold issue of whether the applicant sustained a compensable injury. The Board found the WCJ erred by failing to follow policy and procedure, which requires notice of inadequacy and an opportunity for parties to respond, or scheduling an adequacy hearing, before disapproval. The case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with the Board's opinion.

Petition for RemovalOrder Disapproving Compromise and ReleaseManual Section 1.91Adequacy HearingThreshold IssueInjury Arising Out Of and Occurring In The Course of EmploymentQualified Medical EvaluationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWalk-through Settlement
References
3
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
1
Case No. ADJ17371801; ADJ18218517
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

MARIO PALACIOS vs. PLAN B ADVANTAGE, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Mario Palacios petitioned for removal from a WCJ's order mandating in-person appearances for himself and two witnesses to verify signatures on a Compromise and Release (C&R). He also sought clarification on electronic signatures and challenged a prior C&R disapproval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinding the August 4, 2025 order and allowing Palacios to appear remotely to verify his signature. The Board declined to issue an advisory opinion on electronic signatures but referenced relevant codes, and deemed the challenge to the prior C&R disapproval moot due to an amended C&R.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseElectronic SignaturesIn-Person HearingRemote AppearanceDue ProcessWCJ OrderRescind OrderGood CauseWitness Testimony
References
6
Case No. ADJ11102726
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

CHEN FU YEH vs. GOLDEN LION TRANSPORTATION, INC., REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior decision regarding Chen Fu Yeh's case. This action was taken because the parties have reached a proposed settlement while the matter was pending on reconsideration. The case is returned to the trial level for the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to review the settlement, with potential reinstatement of the original decision if the settlement is disapproved. This order is not a final determination on the merits of the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSettlementRescinded DecisionReturned to Trial LevelWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCompromise and ReleaseNot a Final Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ2241828
Regular
Dec 05, 2008

LISA MANZO vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the employer's petition for reconsideration as it was not a final order but granted removal to rescind the WCJ's disapproval of the Stipulations. The Board found the Stipulations might be adequate despite the WCJ's concerns and ordered the matter returned to the trial level with missing documents to be filed. The employer must provide Dr. Knight's December 2006 report, its investigator's report, and the proposed Stipulations for a new decision on their adequacy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalStipulations with Request for AwardWCJ disapprovalinadequate Stipulationsunsigned Stipulationsindustrial injuryright wristright elbow
References
5
Case No. ADJ7354967
Regular
May 20, 2013

OLIVEI LOVATO vs. RALPH'S, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns attorney Mark Leeds' petition for reconsideration after his sanctions request against his former firm, Reino & Iida, was denied. Leeds alleged due process violations and judicial error regarding the handling of a deposition fee check. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report which found no grounds for sanctions. The Board strongly disapproved of Leeds' pursuit of the action, deeming it a waste of time.

Petition for ReconsiderationSanctionsDeposition FeeLaw Firm DissolutionSubstitution of AttorneyOfficial Address RecordLabor Code § 5813Rule 10561Bad FaithFrivolousness
References
0
Case No. ADJ426447 (RDG 0129495)
Regular
Jul 16, 2010

Shane Guest vs. Barrett Business Services

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as he was not aggrieved by a final order. The applicant sought to set aside a settlement concerning the Employment Development Department's (EDD) lien, arguing it was made in error. However, the Board found that the WCJ had not yet made a final determination on the EDD lien, which is a prerequisite for the Board to have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove such a settlement. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for a final determination of the EDD's lien.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalEDD LienTrial LevelFinal DeterminationTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentStipulationDeferred Lien
References
1
Case No. ADJ7624582 ADJ7986951
Regular
Oct 31, 2011

STEVE HERRERA vs. AMERICAN RED CROSS, Permissibly Self Insured, Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's disapproval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) based on an improper waiver of Civil Code section 1542 rights. Subsequently, the parties withdrew the original C&R and entered into a new one without the problematic language. Due to this modification, the defendant withdrew its petition, rendering the matter moot. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as moot and returned the case to the WCJ for review of the new C&R.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseCivil Code Section 1542WCJLabor Code Section 5005MootSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPermissibly Self Insured
References
1
Case No. ADJ9171209
Regular
Mar 19, 2019

MARIA VILLICANA vs. MOPKIN, uninsured, MITSUWA MARKETPLACE, SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding that neither party can unilaterally withdraw from a fully executed Compromise and Release settlement agreement before it is approved or disapproved. The Board rescinded the prior order suspending the settlement and clarified that the agreement remains binding until a formal decision is made. The case was returned to the trial level for a hearing to determine the adequacy of the settlement. The applicant's original finding, stating she could not withdraw, was affirmed but amended to apply to both parties.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationUninsured EmployerMitsuwa MarketplaceSompo Japan InsuranceBroadsireWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAdequacy of SettlementDue Process
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 24 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