ADJ13591101 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration is granted; Findings of Fact of June 24, 2025 are rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on June 24, 2025, which found the claim barred by res judicata due to a prior Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) from 2011.

Read the official decision →

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.

Jurisdiction / venueApplicant prevailedbrain · nervous system · head · psyche

The prior compromise and release did not list certain body parts such as brain and nervous system, and there was insufficient evidence to conclude the addenda were appropriate or that the prior settlement resolved the newly claimed injuries, so res judicata did not bar the claim.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The prior C&R did not list brain, neuro, or nervous system body parts in paragraph 1, only in addenda.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This omission means the current claim for these body parts is not identical to the prior claim, so res judicata does not bar it.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.

QMERelied upon · neurology

Diagnosed chronic traumatic encephalopathy from concussions, multiple facial fractures, sleep disorder, severe depression and anxiety, left L5 radiculopathy, orthopedic injuries with chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, and prostate cancer; provided AMA Guides ratings for various impairments; deferred to other specialties for psyche, orthopedics, ophthalmology, otolaryngology.

From the decision · page 3No testimony was taken, and three medical reports were admitted into evidence. Applicant submitted a report dated May 21, 2022, by Dr. Rosabel Young, "applicant's QME" in neurology.1 (Exhibit 1.) Dr. Young diagnosed applicant with: chronic traumatic encephalopathy rom concussions in professional football, multiple facial fractures including nasal, sleep disorder, severe depression and anxiety, left L5 radiculopathy, orthopedic injuries with chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, and prostate cancer. (Id. at p. 21.) Dr. Young provided ratings per the AMA Guides for headaches, cognitive impairment, lapses of awareness and involuntary movements, sleep, personality changes due to brain disfunction, and facial injuries. (Id. at p. 22-26.) Dr. Young defers to other specialties for psyche, orthopedics, ophthalmology, otolaryngologist (Id. at p. 26.) Applicant also submitted the report of Dr. Ted Greenzang, "applicant's QME" in psychiatry, dated October 20, 2021. (Applicant's 2.) This report diagnoses depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and probable cognitive disorder. (Id. at p. 13.) Neither doctor reviewed the reporting from the prior claim.

QMERelied upon · psychiatry

Diagnosed depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and probable cognitive disorder; did not review prior claim reports.

From the decision · page 3No testimony was taken, and three medical reports were admitted into evidence. Applicant submitted a report dated May 21, 2022, by Dr. Rosabel Young, "applicant's QME" in neurology.1 (Exhibit 1.) Dr. Young diagnosed applicant with: chronic traumatic encephalopathy rom concussions in professional football, multiple facial fractures including nasal, sleep disorder, severe depression and anxiety, left L5 radiculopathy, orthopedic injuries with chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, and prostate cancer. (Id. at p. 21.) Dr. Young provided ratings per the AMA Guides for headaches, cognitive impairment, lapses of awareness and involuntary movements, sleep, personality changes due to brain disfunction, and facial injuries. (Id. at p. 22-26.) Dr. Young defers to other specialties for psyche, orthopedics, ophthalmology, otolaryngologist (Id. at p. 26.) Applicant also submitted the report of Dr. Ted Greenzang, "applicant's QME" in psychiatry, dated October 20, 2021. (Applicant's 2.) This report diagnoses depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and probable cognitive disorder. (Id. at p. 13.) Neither doctor reviewed the reporting from the prior claim.

QMEPartially credited · neurology

Reviewed prior and current medical reports but did not evaluate applicant; agreed with prior evaluators' findings; report likely not substantial for determining new injury due to lack of independent evaluation.

Report not substantial for determining new injury as no independent evaluation was performed and prior medical records were reviewed without new diagnoses.

From the decision · page 3Defendant submitted a "consult report" (defendant's QME) by neurologist Dr. Daniel Franc, dated November 10, 2024. Dr. Franc reviewed the prior medical reporting as well as the reports from Dr. Young and Dr. Nudleman. Dr. Franc did not evaluate applicant and there are no independent diagnoses apart from agreeing with the prior evaluators.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Branson v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 24 Cal.App.4th 327 (1994)

Res judicata requires that the issue sought to be precluded be identical to that decided in a former proceeding, actually litigated, necessarily decided, final and on the merits, and against the same party or privity.

Defendant bears the burden to prove these elements to bar the current claim by res judicata.

From the decision · page 4II Res judicata refers to both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. "Claim preclusion, the `primary aspect' of res judicata, acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a

Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1160

An approved workers' compensation compromise and release has the same force and effect as an award made after a full hearing and constitutes a final judgment with res judicata effect after five years.

The prior C&R from 2011 is a final judgment barring claims after five years unless exceptions apply.

From the decision · page 5"An approved workers' compensation compromise and release rests `upon a higher plane than a private contractual release; it is a judgment, with "the same force and effect as an award made after a full hearing."'"(Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1160, 1169 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 311], quoting Johnson v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 964, 973.) Consequently, after the five year period has expired, an order approving a compromise and release constitutes a final judgement with the full effect of res judicata. (Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 168 Cal.App.3d at p. 1169.)

Burbank Studios v. Workers' Co. Appeals Bd. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 929

Contract principles apply to C&R agreements; mutual consent and meeting of the minds are required for validity.

The addenda must be clear, consented to, and not contrary to the main C&R terms to be effective.

From the decision · page 5Contract principles apply to settlements of workers' compensation disputes. The legal principles governing compromise and release agreements are the same as those governing other contracts. (Burbank Studios v. Workers' Co. Appeals Bd. (Yount) (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 929, 935 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 432].) For a compromise and release agreement to be effective, the necessary elements of a contract must exist, which includes the mutual consent of the parties. (Civ. Code, § 1550, 1565, 1580; Yount, supra.) There can be no contract unless there is a meeting of the minds and the parties mutually agree upon the same thing. (Civ. Code, § 1550, 1565, 1580; Sackett v. Starr (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 128; Sieck v. Hall (1934) 139 Cal.App. 279, 291; American Can Co. v. Agricultural Ins. Co. (1909) 12 Cal.App. 133, 137.)

ADJ13591101 · September 22, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page