What the panel ordered
Findings and Awards issued December 2, 2020, rescinded; Compromise and Release filed May 20, 2021, approved.
Petition for reconsideration of Findings and Awards issued by WCJ on December 2, 2020, granted for further study; parties agreed to resolve claims by compromise and release.
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 parties agreed to resolve the claims by compromise and release, and the WCAB approved the settlement as adequate and in the best interest of the applicant, rescinding the prior Findings and Awards.
From the decision · page 1I. applicant, petitions for reconsideration of the Findings and Awards issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 2, 2020. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant's injuries in these cases caused new and further disability amounting to 95% of 3%, the liability for such increase apportioned between the two injuries. Previously, a WCJ had approved stipulations on January 22, 2014, that applicant, while employed by defendant, TJ Maxx, sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment as follows: to his low back, neck and psyche and consisting of a sleep disorder and constipation on January 1, 2003, resulting in permanent partial disability of 12% and need of further medical treatment (case ADJ8005454); to his lumbar and thoracic back, neck, shoulders, psyche and consisting of a sleep disorder and constipation during a cumulative period ending June 23, 2011, resulting in permanent partial disability of 25% and need of further medical treatment (case ADJ8005491); and to his lumbar and thoracic back, neck, shoulders, psyche and consisting of a sleep disorder and constipation resulting in permanent partial disability of 45% and need of further medical treatment (case ADJ8005495). Subsequently, applicant's petition to reopen for
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The parties agreed to resolve the claims in cases ADJ8005491 and ADJ8005495 by compromise and release.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This agreement led to the rescission of the prior Findings and Awards and approval of the settlement by the WCAB.
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:
Labor Code section 5002
Labor Code section 5002
Upon filing with and approval by the appeals board, it may enter its award based upon the release or compromise agreement.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code section 5002 states that: "A copy of the release or compromise agreement signed by both parties shall forthwith be filed with the appeals board. Upon filing with and approval by the appeals board, it may, without notice, of its own motion or on the application of either party, enter its award based upon the release or compromise agreement."
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10700
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10700
The WCAB shall inquire into the adequacy of all compromise and release agreements and may set the matter for 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.)
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.