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. ADJ2009610 (OAK 0292872)
Regular
Mar 08, 2010

CLIFFORD HASKIN vs. SVENHARDS SWEDISH BAKERY, SAFECO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR), and returned the case to the trial level. This was done despite the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration, on equitable grounds due to extrinsic mistake. The mistake arose because the WCJ approved the OACR without knowledge of the applicant's prior notification to the defendant of his desire to withdraw from the settlement, a fact belatedly brought to the court's attention. The matter is remanded for the WCJ to re-evaluate the compromise and release agreement, considering factors like disbursement of funds.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseRescind OrderExtrinsic MistakeUntimely PetitionEquitable GroundsIndustrial InjuryBakerFoot Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1981

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Newman

Plaintiff insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, mistakenly paid $9,805.66 to defendant Ruth Newman, intended for an aggregate trust fund related to her deceased husband's workers' compensation benefits. After forwarding the correct payment to the fund, Liberty Mutual sought restitution from Newman, who refused. The Workers' Compensation Board declined to intervene, stating no recourse existed under the Workers' Compensation Law for the error. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the judgment was modified, with the Appellate Division agreeing it was a mistake of fact, not an overpayment of benefits, thus affirming the denial of Newman's summary judgment motion. However, the case was remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine if ordering full restitution would cause a detrimental change in Newman's position regarding her benefits, and clarified that interest and costs should not be awarded against her.

restitutionmistake of factworkers' compensationsummary judgmentunjust enrichmentdetrimental relianceequityinsurance carrieraggregate trust fundappellate review
References
19
Case No. ADJ2342373 (LAO 0512482) ADJ3525697 (LAO 0534774)
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

ALICE BRYANT vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER

The applicant seeks reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order continuing a hearing. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because the order of continuance was not a final order, and thus not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a). Any request to reconsider the 1998 order of dismissal would be untimely as it was filed nearly 17 years late, and such dismissals can generally only be set aside for extrinsic fraud or mistake. The applicant was cautioned about potential sanctions for frivolous filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of ContinuanceDismissal for Lack of ProsecutionFinal OrderTimelinessLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5903Supplemental PetitionExtrinsic Fraud
References
6
Case No. ADJ2523054 (POM 2523054) ADJ8607480 ADJ9435881
Regular
Feb 18, 2020

JOSE SALAZAR vs. JAMES JONES COMPANY, INC.; MUELLER GROUP C/O SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior administrative law judge's decision. The Board held that the applicant failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud or mistake to set aside a 2004 stipulated award, as the petition was filed over fifteen years after the award, well beyond the five-year statutory limit. The applicant's claim of not understanding the settlement documents, even if accepted, did not show he was prevented from presenting his case or that he diligently pursued relief. Therefore, the applicant's petition to set aside the stipulated award was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpetition for reconsiderationextrinsic fraudstipulated awardset asideLabor Code section 5803Labor Code section 5804five-year periodgood causeequitable relief
References
4
Case No. ADJ339464 (LBO 0318588)
Regular
Apr 22, 2019

MELVIN DEAN vs. M. B. HERZOG CORP., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a former attorney's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The attorney sought to overturn an order approving a compromise and release, alleging her lien for attorney fees was improperly handled by current counsel and the WCJ. Although the petition was dismissed for jurisdictional reasons, the WCAB recommended the trial judge treat it as a petition to set aside the order due to allegations of extrinsic fraud or mutual mistake regarding the attorney's lien. A hearing will be necessary to present evidence and allow the WCJ to issue a decision on setting aside the compromise and release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLien ClaimantAttorney FeesTimelinessJurisdictional GroundsPetition to Set AsideExtrinsic FraudMutual Mistake
References
7
Case No. ADJ8558358
Regular
Sep 22, 2025

JOSE MEJIA vs. JB CRITCHLEY, INC., AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the defendant's prior appeals regarding the applicant's stipulated average weekly wage and permanent disability rate were exhausted and that the award was final as of October 2, 2024. The Board affirmed the imposition of penalties under Labor Code section 5814 and attorney fees under section 5814.5 due to the defendant's unreasonable delay in paying the final award. The defendant's arguments regarding seasonal employment and extrinsic mistake were rejected as the stipulated wages and findings were final and not adequately supported for setting aside. The original Findings and Award were rescinded and substituted to reflect the finality of the prior decision and the confirmed penalties and fees.

Labor Code section 5904Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardsemi-truck drivercervical spinethoracic spinelumbar spinehearing losspsychehypertension
References
6
Case No. ADJ11275154
Regular
Jul 09, 2018

CAROL JACKSON vs. TNG, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award. The defendant argued the award's indemnity rate and total value were based on a mutual mistake of fact. However, the applicant denied any mutual mistake regarding the rate. The Board found the defendant's mistake appeared unilateral and caused by neglect, thus upholding the original award.

Stipulations with Request for AwardPermanent disability indemnity rateMutual mistake of factPetition for ReconsiderationUnilateral mistakeGood causeLabor Code Section 5702Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJApplicant
References
8
Case No. ADJ7750435
Regular
Jan 05, 2017

DORRIS DUNCAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an award based on the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant claimed a mutual mistake occurred because a continuation page of paragraph 9 was not signed and attached to the Stipulations. The Board found the defendant failed to provide evidence of a mistake and remanded the case for a hearing. The hearing will determine if there's good cause to set aside the Stipulations due to mutual or unilateral mistake.

StipulationsMutual MistakeReconsiderationAward RescindedLabor Code Section 5803Good CauseSet Aside StipulationsPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportTrial Level Hearing
References
8
Case No. ADJ2453878
Regular
Mar 02, 2017

SEAN COLGAN vs. NO VACANCY TRANSPORT, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denied reconsideration of a settlement. The applicant sought to set aside the settlement, alleging a mistake of fact regarding the inclusion of a serious and willful misconduct claim. The Board found that any misunderstanding by the applicant was a unilateral mistake, not sufficient to rescind the agreement without a showing of fraud, mutual mistake, duress, or undue influence. The WCJ's credibility determination regarding the defendant's intent to settle the claim was given great weight and not overturned.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedSettlementGood CauseFraudMutual Mistake of FactDuressUndue InfluenceUnilateral MistakeSerious and Willful Misconduct
References
6
Case No. ADJ10582846
Regular
Sep 17, 2018

MANFREDO NAVARRO CARDONA vs. IRAMTAC CORP., doing business as 4D DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that awarded temporary total disability benefits. The defendant argued that the stipulated weekly earnings of $900 were a mutual mistake and should be $535.50 based on wage statements. However, the Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the defendant failed to prove mutual mistake or good cause to set aside the stipulation. The Board concluded the mistake, if any, was unilateral and caused by the defendant's neglect.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardStipulated EarningsMutual MistakeAverage Weekly EarningsTemporary Total DisabilityUnilateral MistakeGood CauseRescind Stipulation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 263 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