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. 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. ADJ10447649
Regular
Jan 16, 2018

ALI KENDRICK vs. HOLOGIC, INC.; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA AND ITS PROPERTY CASUALTY AFFILIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES

The defendant, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, sought reconsideration of an award based on stipulated facts. They argued that a mutual mistake occurred regarding the date of injury, leading to an overpayment of permanent disability benefits. The Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration, finding the petition should be treated as a petition to set aside the award at the trial level. The WCJ will now conduct proceedings to determine if good cause exists to rescind or amend the award due to a mutual mistake of fact.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalStipulations with Request for AwardMutual Mistake of FactIndustrial InjuryBilateral ElbowsBilateral WristsPermanent DisabilityIndemnity
References
7
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. 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. ADJ10846103
Regular
Feb 25, 2019

WILLIE SMITH vs. SAN BERNADINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award based on a stipulated agreement, alleging a mistake in the agreed-upon permanent disability rating. The defendant contended that the 55% rating was a mistake and that the parties had actually agreed to a 45% rating. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, ruling that the defendant's request should be treated as a petition to set aside the award at the trial level. The Board determined that further proceedings are necessary to allow both parties to present evidence regarding the alleged mutual mistake of fact.

Stipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityMandatory Settlement ConferenceMutual Mistake of FactSet AsidePetition for ReconsiderationAwardWCJLabor Code Section 5702Good Cause
References
5
Case No. ADJ8336755
Regular

ALICIA ISAIS vs. JIPC MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS, INC., dba JOHN'S INCREDIBLE PIZZA COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns Applicant Alicia Isais's workers' compensation claim against JIPC Management Holdings, Inc. (John's Incredible Pizza Company). The defendant sought to reconsider an approved Compromise and Release, alleging a mutual mistake of fact regarding a temporary total disability credit. The Board denied the petition, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate a mutual mistake and that a unilateral mistake is insufficient grounds to set aside a stipulation. The settlement documents did not indicate any credit for temporary disability benefits paid after April 3, 2013.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseMutual Mistake of FactTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent DisabilityStipulation with Request for AwardSet Aside the AwardUnilateral MistakeGood CauseWeatherall Standard
References
4
Case No. ADJ7825020
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

MILTON LEWIS vs. BARLOW RESPIRATORY HOSPITAL, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a stipulation and order where they agreed to accept \$1,000.00 in full satisfaction of their lien. The lien claimant argued the stipulation was entered into by unilateral mistake as their representative lacked authorization. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the claimant failed to present evidence of unilateral mistake or to properly seek to set aside the stipulation. Furthermore, the claimant did not plead sufficient facts to support a unilateral mistake claim, such as the opposing party's knowledge and advantage, nor did they demonstrate they fulfilled their legal duty of reasonable inquiry.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderUnilateral mistakeAffirmative defenseGood causeRescinding contractMaterial factLegal duty
References
5
Case No. ADJ2528455
Regular
Feb 13, 2012

MARIA FRANCISCO vs. CALIFORNIA RAIN COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order that approved a stipulation settling their lien for $50 out of $1,325. The lien claimant argued mutual mistake of fact, claiming they lacked a complete itemization of charges and there was no meeting of the minds. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding the lien claimant failed to demonstrate mutual mistake and instead appeared to seek relief from their own unilateral mistake. The Board also noted the lien claimant attached already-filed exhibits to their petition, warning of potential sanctions for repeated rule violations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationStipulations and Order to Pay Lien ClaimantMutual Mistake of FactMeeting of the MindsTimelinessPetition for ReconsiderationGood CauseUnilateral Mistake
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ2852228
Regular
Nov 06, 2008

JAMES SWEARINGEN vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case concerns a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of an order requiring restitution for a settled workers' compensation lien. The Appeals Board found a potential mutual mistake of fact in the original stipulation regarding the total lien amount. The case is remanded to the trial level to determine if this mutual mistake occurred and to issue a new decision accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardlien claimantmutual mistake of factstipulated agreementrescissionrestitutionWCJpermanent disabilitymedical treatmentdate of service
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,021 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