What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant after denial of reopening a Compromise and Release settlement; WCJ report recommended denial of reconsideration.
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.
Applicant failed to establish good cause to reopen the Compromise and Release settlement; no credible evidence of fraud, duress, or procedural irregularities.
From the decision · page 5GOOD CAUSE TO REOPEN Generally good cause to rescind an Order Approving Compromise and Release r quires showing that the settlement was secured by fraud, mutual mistake, duress, undue influence, or substantial procedural irregularities. Applicant claims fraud and duress, of which there is no credible evidence.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant failed to provide credible evidence of fraud, duress, or procedural irregularities to establish good cause to reopen the Compromise and Release.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without such evidence, the Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration.
From the decision · page 5GOOD CAUSE TO REOPEN Generally good cause to rescind an Order Approving Compromise and Release r quires showing that the settlement was secured by fraud, mutual mistake, duress, undue influence, or substantial procedural irregularities. Applicant claims fraud and duress, of which there is no credible evidence.
The WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight and was not rejected due to lack of substantial evidence.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This credibility finding supported denial of the Petition for Reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)
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.
Evaluated Applicant before settlement and provided treatment and diagnostics including Modified Barium Swallow Evaluation, MRI of the brain, and Duplex Scan of the bilateral extra cranial arteries.
From the decision · page 6The Compromise and Release was signed and approved in January 2019. Before entering into the settlement agreement, Applicant was evaluated by AME Dr. Conrad Clifford and received treatment and diagnostics including a Modified Barium Swallow Evaluation, MRI of the brain, and Duplex Scan of the bilateral extra cranial arteries.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5803
Labor Code section 5803 grants the Appeals Board continuing jurisdiction to rescind, alter, or amend orders, decisions, and awards upon good cause within five years of injury.
Applied to determine jurisdiction and good cause to reopen the Compromise and Release settlement.
From the decision · page 4JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE ISSUE Labor Code section 5803 states as follows:
Smith v. WCAB (1985) 50 Cal. Comp. Cases 311
Court of Appeal ruling in Smith v. WCAB (1985) that the Appeals Board may rescind, alter, or amend a Compromise and Release within five years of injury upon showing good cause.
Cited to support the Appeals Board's jurisdiction and standards for reopening a Compromise and Release.
From the decision · page 4This power includes the right to review, grant or regrant, diminish, increase, or terminate, within the limits prescribed by this division, any compensation awarded, upon the grounds that the disability of the person in whose favor the award was made has either recurred, increased, diminished, or terminated. The Court of Appeal of California held that within five years of the date of injury, the appeal board may rescind, alter, or amend a Compromise and Release like other orders decisions, and awards. upon a showing of good cause. Smith v. WCAB (1985) 50 Cal. Comp. Cases 311.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's credibility determination given great weight due to opportunity to observe witness demeanor; no substantial evidence to reject credibility.
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)
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.