What the panel ordered
February 7, 2022 Arbitrator's Findings and Award affirmed; September 13, 2022 Order approving stipulations of settlement void and to be reissued
Petition for Reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues; decision after reconsideration issued affirming Arbitrator's Findings and Award
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 Arbitrator found that Arrowood had no right to seek contribution/reimbursement for benefits paid after the approval of the Compromise and Release Agreements because joint and several liability ended and Arrowood was only responsible for their pro-rata share or credit for amounts paid.
From the decision · page 13Therefore, the Arbitrator found that Arrowood has no right to seek contribution/reimbursement for any benefits Arrowood paid after the approval of the two Compromise and Release Agreements against Wausau/Liberty Mutual and Travelers.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Arrowood paid all medical treatment after the approval of the Compromise and Release Agreements without raising the issue of pro-rata liability or credit.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This led the Arbitrator to find Arrowood had no right to seek contribution/reimbursement for benefits paid after the settlements.
From the decision · page 12Apparently, Arrowood did not raise this issue or apply this issue of only being responsible for payment of one-third of medical treatment after the settlements were approved or a credit.
The Compromise and Release Agreements settled future medical liability for the specific injuries and were served on Arrowood, putting them on notice of the settlements and their pro-rata share liability.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the finding that Arrowood was only liable for their pro-rata share or credit after the settlements.
From the decision · page 18Such language is unnecessary in the settlement agreements as there were no liens for contribution/reimbursement filed in the other cases, the Arbitrator allowed contribution up to the dates approving the Compromise and Release Agreements, the Compromise and Release Agreements clearly settled each defendants' liability for future medical treatment after the dates the settlements were approved, Arrowood was not a party to the other two Compromise and Release Agreements and the Compromise and Release Agreements were served on Arrowood putting them on notice two-thirds of the joint and several liability for future medical treatment was settled and they had credit rights or were only liable for their pro-rata share going forward for further medical treatment[.]
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code Section 5005
The Arbitrator found that Labor Code Section 5005 does not apply to the facts of this case involving separate injuries and insurers.
From the decision · page 34. The Arbitrator found that this case involves a separate specific injury against a separate insurance company insuring the same employer and two separate continuous trauma injuries against two other separate insurance companies insuring the same employer. Therefore, the Arbitrator finds that Labor Code § 5005 does not apply to the facts of this case.
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.