What the panel ordered
Findings and Award issued on September 11, 2020, rescinded; Compromise and Release filed July 8, 2022, approved.
Petition for reconsideration of Findings and Award issued by WCJ on September 11, 2020, granted and further study ordered.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ found permanent partial disability of 38%, but the applicant contended the injury caused permanent total disability; the petition for reconsideration was granted, but the parties resolved the matter by compromise and release, which was approved by the Board.
From the decision · page 1I. applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on September 11, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found in case ADJ8529696 that applicant sustained injury to his psyche and internal systems in the form of hypertension, stroke, obstructive sleep apnea, erectile dysfunction, headaches, diabetes and gastroesophageal reflux disease resulting in need of further medical treatment, temporary disability from June 1, 2012, through June 1, 2014, and permanent partial disability of 38%. The WCJ also found that case ADJ9280892 is duplicative of case ADJ8529696. Applicant contends in his petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not finding that the injury caused permanent total disability. Defendant filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which she recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ found applicant sustained injury to psyche and internal systems resulting in need for further medical treatment, temporary disability, and permanent partial disability of 38%.
Favours neutral
This was the basis of the original Findings and Award, which was reconsidered.
From the decision · page 1I. applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on September 11, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found in case ADJ8529696 that applicant sustained injury to his psyche and internal systems in the form of hypertension, stroke, obstructive sleep apnea, erectile dysfunction, headaches, diabetes and gastroesophageal reflux disease resulting in need of further medical treatment, temporary disability from June 1, 2012, through June 1, 2014, and permanent partial disability of 38%. The WCJ also found that case ADJ9280892 is duplicative of case ADJ8529696. Applicant contends in his petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not finding that the injury caused permanent total disability. Defendant filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which she recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied.
Applicant contended the injury caused permanent total disability, challenging the WCJ's finding.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This contention was the basis for the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1I. applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on September 11, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found in case ADJ8529696 that applicant sustained injury to his psyche and internal systems in the form of hypertension, stroke, obstructive sleep apnea, erectile dysfunction, headaches, diabetes and gastroesophageal reflux disease resulting in need of further medical treatment, temporary disability from June 1, 2012, through June 1, 2014, and permanent partial disability of 38%. The WCJ also found that case ADJ9280892 is duplicative of case ADJ8529696. Applicant contends in his petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in not finding that the injury caused permanent total disability. Defendant filed an answer contending that the petition for reconsideration should be denied. The WCJ issued a report in which she recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied.
The parties agreed to resolve the matter by compromise and release, which was approved by the Board.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This resolution led to rescinding the original Findings and Award and approving the settlement.
From the decision · page 2Subsequently, at our request the parties participated in a commissioners' settlement conference and agreed to resolve this matter by compromise and release.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5001
Labor Code section 5001
No release of liability or compromise agreement is valid unless approved by appeals board or referee.
From the decision · page 2II. Labor Code section 5001 states in pertinent part that "[n]o release of liability or compromise agreement is valid unless it is approved by appeals board or referee." WCAB Rule 10700 states that:
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10700
WCAB Rule 10700
The Board shall inquire into adequacy of compromise and release agreements and may set hearing to determine approval.
From the decision · page 2"The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board shall inquire into the adequacy of all compromise and release agreements and stipulations with request for award, and may set the matter for hearing to take evidence when necessary to determine whether the agreement should be approved or disapproved, or issue findings and awards." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10700.)
Labor Code section 5002
Labor Code section 5002
Upon filing and approval by the Board, it may enter its award based on the release or compromise agreement.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.