ADJ11418272 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ Findings and Order affirmed.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant challenging WCJ Findings and Order regarding credit for permanent disability advances; WCJ Report recommended denial of Petition; WCAB panel decision denying Petition for Reconsideration.

Read the official decision →

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.

Permanent disability ratingDefendant prevailedlow back

The WCJ and WCAB found no ambiguity in the settlement language allowing defendant credit for permanent disability advances paid before the Order Approving Compromise and Release, supported by evidence of payments and applicant's awareness.

The facts that decided it

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

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supported the finding that defendant is entitled to credit for these advances under the settlement agreement.

The rules the panel named

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

Civil Code section 1636

Contract interpretation principles to give effect to mutual intention of parties at time of contracting.

Applied to interpret the Compromise and Release agreement language.

From the decision · page 2As a preliminary matter, we note that contract principles apply to settlements of workers' compensation disputes. The legal principles governing compromise and release agreements are the same as those governing other contracts. (Burbank Studios v. Workers' Co. Appeals Bd. (Yount) (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 929, 935 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 832].) An overriding goal of contract interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful. (Civ. Code, § 1636.) The language of a contract governs its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity. (Civ. Code, § 1638; County of San Joaquin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Sepulveda) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1184 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 193].)

Civil Code section 1638

Contract language governs interpretation if clear and explicit without absurdity.

Applied to determine no ambiguity in settlement language.

From the decision · page 2As a preliminary matter, we note that contract principles apply to settlements of workers' compensation disputes. The legal principles governing compromise and release agreements are the same as those governing other contracts. (Burbank Studios v. Workers' Co. Appeals Bd. (Yount) (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 929, 935 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 832].) An overriding goal of contract interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful. (Civ. Code, § 1636.) The language of a contract governs its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity. (Civ. Code, § 1638; County of San Joaquin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Sepulveda) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1184 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 193].)

Labor Code section 5001

No release of liability or compromise agreement is valid unless approved by Appeals Board or WCJ.

Applied to affirm the Order Approving Compromise and Release as a binding judgment.

From the decision · page 2However, pursuant to Labor Code section 5001, no release of liability or compromise agreement is valid unless it is approved by the Appeals Board or WCJ. (Lab. Code, § 5001.) "An approved workers' compensation compromise and release rests upon a higher plane than a private contractual release; it is a judgment, with the same force and effect as an award made after a full hearing." (Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1160, 1169 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 311]; Johnson v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 964, 973 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 362]; Raischell & Cottrell, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 991, 997 [32 Cal.Comp.Cases 135].) Here, the OACR clearly states that "Defendant may take credit for all advances paid through DATE OF OACR, (subject to proof.)"

ADJ11418272 · November 14, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page