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. ADJ7793819 ADJ8527743 ADJ7742174
Regular
Jun 06, 2013

EVERETT JOHNSON vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, CORVEL

The Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as moot because the order sought to be reconsidered was rescinded pending a decision on the applicant's petition to set aside the Compromise and Release. The defendant's Petition for Removal was also denied as they were not currently aggrieved. The matter is returned to the WCJ to hear and rule on the applicant's Petition to Set Aside Order Approving Compromise and Release. The defendant may seek reconsideration after a final order on the settlement is issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and Releaseattorney feesWCJset aside ordermisrepresentationfraudcumulative trauma
References
0
Case No. ADJ9876334
Regular
Dec 12, 2017

ERIC DOZIER vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kaiser Permanente's petition for reconsideration because the order they sought to appeal was not a final order. They also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board further clarified that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to a defective service designation on the original Order Approving Compromise and Release. Finally, the WCJ acted within their authority to rescind the Order Approving Compromise and Release after a timely reconsideration petition was filed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOACRDefective Service
References
6
Case No. ADJ3298152 (AHM 0079395)
Regular
Nov 30, 2018

SUSAN DEAN vs. HOMEGROCER.COM, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns a defendant's attempt to be released from a stipulation regarding injured body parts in a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) previously granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding a finding that there was good cause to release the defendant from the stipulation. The defendant then petitioned for reconsideration or removal of the WCAB's decision. The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for removal, finding it was not a final order. The WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration, holding that a subsequent conflicting medical opinion does not constitute good cause to set aside a stipulation and reaffirming that the defendant remains bound by the original agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationStipulationGood CauseInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderJudicial AuthorityAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. ADJ8381778
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

GERALD BROWN vs. GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM, LIBERTY MUTUAL

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Gerald Brown, filed a Petition for Removal and a Petition for Disqualification against Golden Gate Petroleum and Liberty Mutual. The defendants subsequently withdrew both petitions after entering into a Compromise and Release agreement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both petitions as moot, as they were withdrawn and the settlement was approved by the WCJ. Therefore, no further action will be taken on the dismissed petitions.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8381778mootwithdrawn petitionsdismissaladministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2004

Velella v. New York Local Condotional Release Commission

The petitioners, including Gonzalez, Caba, Stephens, Velella, and DelToro, challenged determinations by the Conditional Release Commission and the Department of Correction. These determinations advised petitioners that their conditional releases were invalid and directed them to surrender. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied their five CPLR article 78 petitions. This appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the petitioners' conditional releases illegal due to non-compliance with Correction Law § 273 (1) and (6). The court also ruled that the agencies had the power to set aside determinations based on significant irregularities and that the petitioners had no substantive due process right to illegal orders, having been afforded adequate procedural due process through the CPLR article 78 proceedings.

Conditional ReleaseCorrection Law ViolationsDue ProcessArticle 78 PetitionAgency AuthorityIllegal ReleaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewGovernment EstoppelNew York Law
References
14
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. ADJ665982
Regular
Jun 16, 2011

NELIDA SANCHEZ, NELIDA SANCHEZ DEL SOCORRO vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal and Reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that had overturned a ruling finding a lack of jurisdiction. The applicant's original Compromise and Release was deemed a final order, and her subsequent petition to reopen was untimely as it was filed after the five-year statutory limit from the date of injury. The WCAB affirmed the Order Approving Compromise and Release, reinstating the earlier ruling of no jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RescissionDue ProcessPetition to ReopenCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseuntimelygood cause
References
2
Case No. ADJ8278101 ADJ8278102 ADJ10320660
Regular
Jan 30, 2017

JESUS GUZMAN vs. ABBOT’S PIZZA, LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves multiple petitions stemming from an administrative law judge's rescission of a previously approved Compromise and Release. The Appeals Board dismissed Security National's petitions as they were not a party to the original agreement and dismissed Employers Comp's petition due to withdrawal. Insurance Company of the West's reconsideration petition was dismissed as interlocutory, but its removal petition was granted to address due process concerns. The Board amended the rescission order to require a hearing on whether the original settlement should be rescinded, returning the case to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Compromise and ReleaseOrder ApprovingOrder RescindingPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSupplemental PleadingSanctionsAggrieved PartyFinal DecisionInterlocutory Order
References
10
Case No. ADJ9343159, ADJ1368987 (MON0362038)
Regular
Sep 15, 2017

JAMES ISAAC vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed United Airlines' petition as procedurally improper. United Airlines filed a "Petition to Set Aside Order Approving Compromise and Release" instead of the correct "Petition for Reconsideration." The WCAB will return the matter to the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to address United Airlines' original petition. This ruling does not substantively rule on the merits of setting aside the compromise and release.

Petition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDismissedGallagher Bassett ServicesUnited AirlinesADJ9343159ADJ1368987
References
0
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
0
Showing 1-10 of 14,467 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