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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
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 The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original order, and returned the matter to the trial level for the judge to consider the amended settlement.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
Case No. ADJ2746818
Regular
Dec 16, 2019

GUSTAVO VELA vs. CAFE MIDI. INC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION ISURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Technology Insurance Company (Petitioner), a non-party, challenging an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) concerning applicant Gustavo Vela. Petitioner sought to set aside the OACR, alleging denial of due process due to an unrelated, subsequent claim involving Petitioner. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition, primarily because it was filed untimely, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline after Petitioner received the OACR. Furthermore, even if timely, the Petition would have been dismissed for lack of standing as Petitioner was not a party to the original settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseaggrieved personLabor Code section 5900due processcumulative trauma claimadministrative law judgeuntimely petition
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. 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. ADJ10084051
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

LIDIO LEONEL TORRES vs. KML SERVICES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

CareMeridian, LLC, a healthcare provider, sought to set aside an approved Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) compromise and release (C&R) agreement that resolved the applicant's future medical care. CareMeridian argued it was an aggrieved party and was denied due process regarding payment for its services. The WCAB denied the petition, finding CareMeridian was not a party to the C&R and therefore not entitled to notice or a hearing at the time of its approval. Furthermore, the Board determined that CareMeridian lacked standing to challenge the C&R's adequacy, as the applicant and insurer had the statutory right to compromise their liabilities.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyStandingDue ProcessMedical Provider LienSkeleton PetitionNon-PartyNoticeOpportunity to Be Heard
References
Case No. ADJ10418270
Regular
Sep 09, 2025

Mahalia Wilson vs. Advanced Medical Personnel, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to examine the legal and factual issues surrounding a lien claim for attorney's fees. The initial WCJ decision had deemed the lien claim time-barred, citing the claimant's failure to object to a Compromise & Release (C&R) or timely seek reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR). However, the Appeals Board rescinded these findings, affirming that the lien claimant's previous actions, including filing the application for adjudication and the lien, provided sufficient notice. The Board also emphasized the WCJ's responsibility to identify and address all lien claims and clarified that a C&R agreement does not bind non-parties. The case is now remanded for further proceedings to determine a reasonable attorney's fee and identify the responsible paying parties.

Lien claimantAttorney's feesCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseTime-barredReconsiderationNoticeWaiverContract lawDue process
References
Case No. ADJ498505 (SFO 0420916) ADJ6979901
Regular
Feb 27, 2012

DEBORAH ROLLINS vs. COUNTY OF SOLANO

This case concerns applicant Deborah Rollins' petition to reconsider the denial of her request to set aside a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the original decision that the C&R, including a broad general release of claims, was valid and could not be set aside. Applicant argued the general release was boilerplate, she was unaware of its scope, and she was incompetent due to her medical condition. The Board found the general release enforceable based on the applicant's signature and her attorney's testimony that it was explained. The Board also found insufficient evidence of incompetency or grounds for unilateral mistake to invalidate the agreement.

Compromise and ReleaseGeneral ReleaseSet Aside AgreementLabor Code section 5803IncompetencyUnilateral Mistake of FactBoilerplate LanguagePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseGood Cause
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. ADJ917402 (MON 0321095)
Regular
Jun 27, 2014

LILIA GUERRERO vs. THIRD PARTY ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Lilia Guerrero's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed late. The underlying Order Approving Compromise and Release was issued on April 2, 2014, and the petition was not filed within the mandatory 20-day timeframe plus 5 days for mailing. Even if the petition had been timely, the WCAB would have denied it on the merits based on the judge's report. Therefore, the petition is dismissed as untimely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Compromise and ReleaseWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDismissalPomona District OfficeThird Party Enterprises
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,341 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