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 As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda.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. ADJ1306333 (LAO 0818594) ADJ719747 (LAO 0818595) ADJ2637714 (LAO 0865003)
Regular
Jun 09, 2011

ARMIDA PUGA vs. C&D AEROSPACE RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT for ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GAB ROBBINS for CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY & SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed Atlantic Mutual's Petition for Reconsideration as there was no final order to reconsider. However, the Board granted removal to address the underlying issue. They rescinded the WCJ's order that rescinded a prior approval of a Compromise and Release. Consequently, the original Order Approving Compromise and Release, issued on January 26, 2011, is effectively reinstated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Approving Compromise & ReleaseOrder Rescinding OrderMaterial Mistake of FactDue ProcessThird Party AdministratorPrincipalRehabilitation
References
0
Case No. WCK0071378
Regular
Aug 07, 2008

KEN RYERSON vs. NESTLE COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured, adjusted by SEDGWICK

This case involves a worker's compensation appeal concerning temporary disability and vocational rehabilitation rates. However, the parties submitted a compromise and release agreement for $140,000.00 to settle all claims, including potential death benefits for dependents. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded its prior decision, and approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the applicant's best interest, considering the release of death benefits and the absence of specific vocational rehabilitation protections.

Compromise and ReleaseVocational Rehabilitation Delay RateThomas FindingRogers ReleaseDeath BenefitsCumulative Industrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesNeckSpineBack
References
2
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. LAO 0840072; LAO 0858867
Regular
Mar 18, 2008

LAURA SAMPLE vs. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's order that had voided a prior compromise and release agreement. The Board found the applicant's petition for reconsideration was untimely, thus the WCJ lacked jurisdiction to rescind the original order. However, the Board remanded the case for further proceedings, suggesting the WCJ should have treated the applicant's untimely petition as a motion to set aside the compromise and release, requiring notice and a hearing to determine if good cause existed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUniversal Protection ServicesAmerican Casualty CompanyOrder of RescissionOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessJurisdictionLabor Code Section 5803Petition to Set Aside
References
1
Case No. ADJ7271033
Regular
Jan 25, 2017

JENNIFER LAWSON vs. GLEN IVY DAY SPA, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed lien claimant Proex Diagnostics' lien for failure to pay a \$100 activation fee. Proex argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a federal court order and DWC guidance. The WCAB's notice indicates they intend to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days of the notice. If rescinded, the lien claim will return to the trial level for further proceedings.

Proex DiagnosticsGlen Ivy Day SpaCompWest Insurance CompanyBerkshire Hathaway Homestate CompaniesLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReconsiderationCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. ADJ10330567, ADJ10509711
Regular
Jul 17, 2017

FRANCISCO SALAZAR vs. NATURE'S BEST DISTRIBUTION, LLC, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, TOKIO MARINE MANAGEMENT & INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB found the judge's order rescinding a compromise and release agreement was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the disputed settlement addendum. The defendant's argument that the rescinding order lacked substantial evidence was not addressed as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

WCABReconsiderationOrder RescindingCompromise and ReleaseJoint Order ApprovingPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJSubstantial EvidenceFinal Order
References
6
Case No. ADJ3005615 (PAS 0035964) ADJ685961 (VEN 0120428)
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

Stephanie Curry vs. Pacific Care Behavioral Health Care, Inc., The Travelers Insurance Company, Rosemary Cottage, California Insurance Guarantee Association, Fremont Indemnity Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration regarding a compromise and release settlement in a workers' compensation matter. The applicant, Stephanie Curry, argued that the initial settlement approved by the Board did not accurately reflect the parties' intent, specifically omitting a provision for $7,300 to be paid to her attorney for a loan. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded its prior approval of the first compromise and release, and approved a second, amended compromise and release that correctly included the attorney's lien provision. The Board found the amended settlement adequate and in the applicant's best interest, noting the prior overpayment by Travelers due to the omission.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleaseReconsiderationAttorney's LienLiving Expenses LoanIndustrial InjuryConsequential InjuryNew and Further DisabilityTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1984

Kacprowski v. Sorro

This case involves a special proceeding under Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (5) where the plaintiffs-petitioners sought permission to compromise a personal injury action. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially granted their motion for leave to renew and reargue their application, subsequently granting the application to compromise the action. The Utilities Mutual Insurance Company and the Special Funds Conservation Committee appealed this decision, arguing the $22,500 settlement was inadequate and the permission to settle was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the resettled order, finding that the liability and damage questions in the underlying action, which involved a dog attack aggravating previous injuries and precipitating surgery, were problematical, thus concluding that the settlement grant was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjurySettlementCompromiseDog AttackAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionDamagesLiabilityAggravated Injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,350 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