Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114
Stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown to set aside, including fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or lack of capacity.
The Board applied Weatherall to find no good cause to set aside the stipulations.
From the decision · page 4II.
Turning now to the merits of the Petition, pursuant to County of Sacramento v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1],
stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given
permission to withdraw from their agreements. As defined in Weatherall, "A stipulation is `An
agreement between opposing counsel... ordinarily entered into for the purpose of avoiding delay,
trouble, or expense in the conduct of the action,' (Ballentine, Law Dict. (1930) p. 1235, col. 2) and
serves `to obviate need for proof or to narrow range of litigable issues' (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed.
1990) p. 1415, col. 1) in a legal proceeding." (Weatherall, supra, at 1118.)
The party seeking to set aside an agreement after it has become final must make a showing
of good cause. Good cause includes fraud, duress, undue influence, mutual mistake of fact, mistake
of law, invalidity of execution, incompetency, or minority at the time of execution of the
agreement. (See California Workers' Compensation Law (Cont. Ed. Bar 4th Ed.) § 16.61 et seq.;
see also Argonaut Ins. Exch. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Bellinger) (1958) 49 Cal.2d 706 [23
Lab. Code, 5705
Burden of proof to set aside a settlement rests on the party seeking relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
Applicant had the burden to prove good cause to set aside the stipulations.
From the decision · page 5As the moving party, applicant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the
evidence, she 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"].)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10166(b)
Consultative ratings are not admissible in judicial proceedings.
The Board found no fraud based on the non-admissibility of consultative ratings.
From the decision · page 5Here, applicant alleges that the Stipulations with Request for Award was "procured by
[f]raud" and that defendant was "acting in bad faith" when they failed to provide the DEU
Consultative Rating to the WCJ. (Petition, p. 2.) Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10166(b), however,
consultative ratings are not admissible in judicial proceedings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10166(b).)
Further, we find no evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence, mutual mistake of fact, mistake of
law, invalidity of execution, or incompetency herein.