ADJ16936069 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Denied applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's denial of the Petition to Set Aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's September 25, 2025 Findings and Order denying Petition to Set Aside the December 6, 2024 Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR). The WCAB considered the Petition for Reconsideration and the Presiding WCJ's Report recommending denial.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 10, 2025.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailedmouth · respiratory system · lungs

Applicant failed to show good cause such as fraud, duress, mutual mistake, undue influence, or lack of capacity to set aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release. The WCJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence including applicant's testimony and prior attorney's testimony.

From the decision · page 9On September 25, 2025, Judge Coze issued her Finding of Facts, Order and Opinion on Decision. Judge Coze found that the compromise and release signed by applicant on November 1, 2024, was: 1) not shown to have been the result of misrepresentation, fraud or duress; 2) not shown to have been the result of mutual error; and 3) not shown to have been the result of undue influence or procedural irregularities (Finding of Facts, Order, Opinion on Decision, September 25, 2025, at pages 2-3). Additionally, Judge Coze found that applicant failed to show that he lacked the capacity to enter into a legal agreement on November 1, 2024 (Finding of Facts, Order, Opinion on Decision, September 25, 2025, at page 3). Judge Coze also found that applicant's retroactive temporary disability were paid in full as part of the compromise and release (Finding of Facts, Order, Opinion on Decision, September 25, 2025, at page 2, Finding #8). Judge Coze denied applicant's Petition to Set Aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release (Finding of Facts, Order, Opinion on Decision, September 25, 2025, at page 3).

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant signed the Compromise and Release on November 1, 2024, which included payment of all temporary disability benefits including retroactive TTD.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact supported the denial of the Petition to Set Aside because the settlement was found to include all owed benefits.

From the decision · page 9On September 25, 2025, Judge Coze issued her Finding of Facts, Order and Opinion on Decision. Judge Coze found that the compromise and release signed by applicant on November 1, 2024, was: 1) not shown to have been the result of misrepresentation, fraud or duress; 2) not shown to have been the result of mutual error; and 3) not shown to have been the result of undue influence or procedural irregularities (Finding of Facts, Order, Opinion on Decision, September 25, 2025, at pages 2-3). Additionally, Judge Coze found that applicant failed to show that he lacked the capacity to enter into a legal agreement on November 1, 2024 (Finding of Facts, Order, Opinion on Decision, September 25, 2025, at page 3). Judge Coze also found that applicant's retroactive temporary disability were paid in full as part of the compromise and release (Finding of Facts, Order, Opinion on Decision, September 25, 2025, at page 2, Finding #8). Judge Coze denied applicant's Petition to Set Aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release (Finding of Facts, Order, Opinion on Decision, September 25, 2025, at page 3).

Applicant failed to provide medical evidence of incapacity or other good cause such as fraud, duress, or undue influence to set aside the settlement.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of such evidence supported the WCJ's finding that the settlement was valid and enforceable.

From the decision · page 11Applicant testified that he believes he was mentally compromised when he signed the compromise and release with depression, stress, and anxiety, he also affirmed that he was not institutionalized for any psychiatric disability at the time he signed the Compromised & Release. He was not on any disability payment or other government benefit for a psychiatric injury at the time he signed the Compromise & Release. Applicant did not provide medical evidence of incapacity. (MOH/SOE and Joint Exhibit AA C&R.)

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.

PTPRelied upon

Initially found the injury to be industrial but later concluded the COPD/respiratory injury was non-industrial, deferring to AME for confirmation. Temporary disability payments were stopped based on this conclusion.

The WCJ found that the retroactive temporary disability was part of the settlement based on the medical opinions including Dr. Realyvasquez's findings.

From the decision · page 2The parties proceeded with discovery and utilized AME Dr. Greenberg. Applicant treated with Dr. Realyvasquez, who initially found the injury to be industrial. Applicant received temporary total disability (TTD) payments from September 15, 2022, through November 4, 2023.

AMERelied upon · pulmonology and internal medicine

Found industrial causation, permanent disability, and need for future medical care relating to applicant's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Confirmed temporary total disability periods and maximum medical improvement date of September 11, 2024.

The settlement and approval of the Compromise and Release were based on Dr. Greenberg's medical reporting, which was found persuasive and unchallenged by the WCAB.

From the decision · page 5Pursuant to the C&R, settlement is based on the reporting of Dr. Greenberg, the AME in pulmonology and internal medicine, whose medical reporting of September 11, 2024 supports the WCJ's approval of the settlement. Dr. Greenberg found industrial causation, permanent disability, and the need for future medical care relating to applicant's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. (Report of Dr. Greenberg, 9/11/24, at p. 11-12.). Because the parties selected Dr. Greenberg for his expertise and neutrality, his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is a good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive, and here we can discern no reason to overturn the findings of the WCJ. (See Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782-784 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].)

The rules the panel named

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

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

A petition to set aside an Order Approving Compromise and Release after it has become final will not be granted absent a showing of good cause such as fraud, mutual mistake of fact, duress or undue influence.

The WCJ correctly applied this standard in denying the petition due to lack of good cause.

From the decision · page 10It is well-settled that a request to set aside an Order Approving Compromise and Release after it has become final will not be granted, absent a showing of good cause. Such a showing must generally consist of the existence of fraud, mutual mistake of fact, duress or undue influence. (See Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1160 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 311]; Carmichael v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 311 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 169]; Silva v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1924) 68 Cal. App. 510 [11 IAC 266]. See also City of Beverly Hills v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dowdle) (1997) 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 1691 (writ denied); Bullocks, Inc. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1951) 16 Cal.Comp.Cases 253 (writ denied); Pac. Indem. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Forrest) (1946) 11 Cal.Comp.Cases 117 (writ denied).)

Labor Code section 5705; Labor Code section 3202.5

The burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue to show by a preponderance of the evidence that relief from the settlement agreement is warranted.

Applicant had the burden to prove good cause to set aside the settlement, which he failed to meet.

From the decision · page 11As the moving party, Applicant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, he should be relieved from the settlement agreement that was entered into with defendant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence"].)

ADJ16936069 · January 5, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page