ADJ18359573 · May 13, 2024

The petition was dismissed as premature because the applicant's understanding of the settlement was not assessed, and the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine if the settlement was valid and adequate.

From the decision · page 1Applicant1 seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 14, 2024.2

Applicant's Petition was written in Spanish and not translated, making it difficult to assess his understanding of the settlement terms.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This raised doubt about whether there was mutual consent and a valid contract, leading to dismissal of the petition as premature.

From the decision · page 1As applicant's Petition is in Spanish and the record of proceedings does not contain a translation, it is difficult to assess applicant's contentions with any degree of specificity. We received an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied or, in the alternative, for guidance from the Appeals Board as to whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release.

Applicant was not present at the hearing and did not confirm his attorney remained as counsel.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This lack of evidence about applicant's understanding and representation contributed to the dismissal of the petition as premature.

From the decision · page 4Here, we are unable to ascertain what applicant understood, much less what he intended to settle. Applicant's Petition was written in Spanish and not translated by the parties or the WCJ. Moreover, applicant was not at the March 21, 2024 conference. If applicant did not understand the terms of the settlement, it calls into question whether the parties mutually agreed upon the same thing, which then calls into question whether a valid contract was formed. Applicant filed the Petition himself, not with the assistance of counsel. While applicant's attorney confirmed they remain as the attorney of record at a hearing on March 21, 2024, there is no evidence in the record that applicant himself confirmed this.

No hearing was held to assess applicant's understanding of the settlement agreement or whether a valid contract was formed.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without such assessment, the Board could not confirm the validity of the settlement, leading to dismissal of the petition as premature and remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 5his level of permanent disability, if any, was not rated. Because no hearing was held, the WCJ did not have the opportunity to assess applicant's understanding of the proposed settlement agreement.

Performed initial orthopedic consultation and removed sutures from amputated fingers; no permanent and stationary determination or permanent disability rating was made before the settlement.

The lack of a permanent and stationary determination and disability rating contributed to the conclusion that the settlement's validity was uncertain and the petition was premature.

From the decision · page 4Applicant was not evaluated by a QME, he had at most six visits with Concentra, and one consultation with Dr. Dashe, the orthopedic surgeon. On October 26, 2023, Dr. Dashe removed the sutures from applicant's amputated fingers and on November 1, 2023, applicant signed a C&R. Applicant was not cleared to return to work, he was not determined to be permanent and stationary,

Lab. Code, 5803

The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction to rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award for good cause upon notice and opportunity to be heard.

The Board considered whether there were sufficient grounds to set aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release.

From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Subject to the limitations of Labor Code3 section 5804, "[t]he appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered under the provisions of [Division 4]... At any time, upon notice and after the opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor." (Lab. Code, § 5803.) We observe 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].) For a compromise and release agreement to be effective, the necessary elements of a contract must exist.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10700(b)

The Board shall inquire into the adequacy of all Compromise and Release agreements and may set the matter for hearing to determine whether the agreement should be approved or disapproved.

The Board noted the legislative objective of protecting injured workers from improvident releases and the need to establish the worker's knowledge and intent separately from standard release language.

From the decision · page 4"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(b).) This inquiry should carry out the legislative objective of safeguarding the injured worker from entering into unfortunate or improvident releases as a result of, for instance, economic pressure or lack of competent advice. (Claxton v. Waters (2004) 34 Cal.4th 367, 373 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 895]; Sumner v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 965, 972-973.) The worker's knowledge of and intent to release particular benefits must be established separately from the standard release language of the form. (Claxton, supra, at 373.)

Applicant was not present at the hearing on March 21, 2024, and there was no evidence he confirmed his attorney remained as counsel.

From the decision · page 4Here, we are unable to ascertain what applicant understood, much less what he intended to settle. Applicant's Petition was written in Spanish and not translated by the parties or the WCJ. Moreover, applicant was not at the March 21, 2024 conference. If applicant did not understand the terms of the settlement, it calls into question whether the parties mutually agreed upon the same thing, which then calls into question whether a valid contract was formed. Applicant filed the Petition himself, not with the assistance of counsel. While applicant's attorney confirmed they remain as the attorney of record at a hearing on March 21, 2024, there is no evidence in the record that applicant himself confirmed this.

Applicant's Petition was in Spanish and not translated, making it difficult to assess his contentions and understanding of the settlement.

From the decision · page 1As applicant's Petition is in Spanish and the record of proceedings does not contain a translation, it is difficult to assess applicant's contentions with any degree of specificity. We received an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied or, in the alternative, for guidance from the Appeals Board as to whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release.