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. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. ADJ8350670
Regular
Jun 24, 2014

SALOMON LOPEZ vs. D & T FOODS, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a dispute over the approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) in a workers' compensation claim. The applicant sustained injuries to his back, legs, and abdomen. The WCJ issued an order requiring further medical evaluation despite the parties filing an amended C&R. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the WCJ's order was inappropriate. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the WCJ's order, and approved the amended C&R, awarding the applicant a net recovery of $15,335.71.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseWCJ OrderQME evaluationAME evaluationabdominal aspectsdriver unloaderindustrial injurypermanent disability advancesattorney's fee
References
0
Case No. ADJ6886930
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

MARIA TERESA RODRIGUEZ vs. MOUNTAIN F ENTERPRISES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order that reduced the agreed-upon attorney's fee in a death benefit and serious and willful misconduct compromise and release. The Board found the WCJ's reasons for the reduction inadequate and intended to amend the order to approve the original $38,500 attorney's fee. This is being done after providing applicant's counsel an opportunity to comply with procedural requirements regarding fee increases, and applicant notice of her right to seek independent counsel.

AMENDED COMPROMISE AND RELEASESERIOUS AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCTPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONGUARDIAN AD LITEMATTORNEY'S FEE REDUCTIONINDUSTRIAL INJURYDEATH CLAIMDEPENDENTSWAGESLABOR CODE
References
6
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
6
Case No. ADJ4139709
Regular
Jan 14, 2010

JORGE HERRERA vs. ROMANO'S MACARONI GRILL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Applicant filed a petition for reconsideration from a non-final Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which is procedurally improper. Simultaneously, a different judge approved a Compromise and Release Agreement on the same day the petition was filed, an action beyond the judge's authority once the petition was pending. The Board dismissed the Applicant's petition for reconsideration and, on its own motion, granted reconsideration of the approved Compromise and Release. Consequently, the Order Approving Compromise and Release was vacated and the matter remanded for further consideration of the agreement.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalMandatory Settlement ConferenceCompromise and Release AgreementNotice of Intention to DismissWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJEAMSLabor CodeFinal Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1988

Anzalone v. Traveler's Insurance

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied judicial approval for the compromise and settlement of a personal injury action under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the petition and approving the compromise settlement. The court found that the Supreme Court had improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the application. Key factors included the defendants' limited insurance coverage of $10,000/$20,000 and the difficulty the petitioner would face in proving

Workers' CompensationPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalCompromise SettlementInsurance Coverage LimitsSerious Injury ThresholdAppellate ReviewDiscretion AbuseLien RightsDelay Excusable
References
1
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
2
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
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradlees Stores, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance (In Re Bradlees Stores, Inc.)

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company ("St. Paul") moved to vacate a February 6, 2003 order approving a settlement with Bradlees Stores, Inc., Bradlees, Inc., and New Horizons of Yonkers, Inc. (collectively, "Bradlees"). St. Paul premised its request on mutual mistake, arguing that both parties believed Stop & Shop Companies, Inc. ("Stop & Shop") had assumed all pre-July 1992 workers' compensation liabilities for Bradlees. The court denied the motion, finding no mutual mistake of fact but rather speculation about a future event (Stop & Shop potentially reneging on its assumed obligations). The court also noted St. Paul's sophistication and prior knowledge of its potential exposure, thus failing to establish grounds for newly discovered evidence or misrepresentation. Finally, the court denied St. Paul's request to hold the motion in abeyance, emphasizing the need to conclude the Debtors' cases.

BankruptcySettlement AgreementMotion to VacateWorkers' Compensation LiabilitiesMutual MistakeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)Bankruptcy Rules Rule 9023Bankruptcy Rules Rule 9024Letter of Credit
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 24,852 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