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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
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. ADJ6780734
Regular
Sep 08, 2011

Venessa Vielma vs. The Pape Group, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the WCJ issued an Order Approving Compromise and Release one day after the jurisdictional 15-day period to act on the applicant's petition for reconsideration had expired. This untimely action rendered the WCJ's Order and the prior Findings, Award and Order without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Board rescinded both the Order Approving Compromise and Release and the Findings Award and Order. The matter is returned to the trial level for further review of the settlement by the WCJ.

Writ of MandatePetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseFindings Award and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
Case No. ADJ6800117
Regular
Oct 30, 2013

JUANITA LUCAS vs. WALGREENS DISTRIBUTION CENTER, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of an order vacating a Compromise and Release. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was not taken from a "final" order that determined substantive rights. The WCAB also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. However, the WCAB noted that the administrative law judge should have set the matter for a conference to determine good cause to set aside the order rather than vacating it directly.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition to Set Aside Compromise and ReleaseVacating OrderLabor Code §5900
References
Case No. ADJ8500075
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

RUDI QUINTEROS vs. STAMOULES PRODUCE, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal after the WCJ rescinded an order approving a compromise and release (C&R). The applicant claimed a "change of heart" as the basis for setting aside the C&R, which the defendant argued was insufficient grounds. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the WCJ's order and substituting an order suspending the C&R approval. The case was returned to the WCJ to hold a status conference to allow the applicant to present arguments for setting aside the C&R.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleasePetition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder Rescinding OrderGood CauseFraudMistakeUndue Influence
References
Case No. ADJ4689210 (VNO 0544832) ADJ6906409 ADJ7469887
Regular
Sep 20, 2019

Donald Yeager vs. CALPORTLAND COMPANY, MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE USA, INC., administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Applicant sought removal and disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge after the judge ordered trial and denied reassignment. However, the parties had already entered into and received approval for three Compromise and Release agreements settling all claimed injuries. The Appeals Board found these settlement agreements rendered the Applicant's petitions moot. Therefore, the Board dismissed both the Petition for Disqualification and the Petitions for Removal.

Petitions for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseOrders Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder Rescinding Orders Approving Compromise and ReleaseReconsideration UnitJurisdictionMoot IssuesWCJ GlassWCJ Morgan
References
Case No. ADJ10110995
Regular
Oct 05, 2016

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order that he claimed was issued January 11, 2016, arguing a Compromise and Release did not settle his serious and willful misconduct claim. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely, noting the applicant filed his petition significantly late. Even if considered timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits, as a prior decision had already approved a Compromise and Release excluding the 132a claim. The Board clarified that while 132a claims are not subject to ADR, serious and willful misconduct claims are.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseArbitratorAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 132aTimelinessOpinion and Order Dismissing PetitionDivision 4
References
Case No. ADJ7044674
Regular
Apr 12, 2010

AHMAD SADIGHI vs. CITY OF DALY CITY, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order vacating a compromise and release was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the case for further proceedings. This action was taken to ensure the defendant's due process rights by providing them notice and an opportunity to present evidence and arguments regarding the applicant's request to vacate the settlement. The WCJ should have scheduled a hearing or issued a notice allowing parties to address the merits of vacating the compromise and release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Substantive Rights and LiabilitiesNotice and Opportunity to Be Heard
References
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
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,874 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