What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal granted; June 8, 2021 Joint Order Suspending Action on Compromise and Release rescinded; parties ordered to file amended Compromise and Release including trust provisions for approval.
Petition for Removal of the June 8, 2021 Joint Order Suspending Action on Compromise and Release was filed by applicant, seeking approval of a Compromise and Release settlement that the WCJ had declined to approve.
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 demonstrated that time is of the essence and irreparable harm may result if approval of the settlement is delayed, justifying removal of the order suspending approval of the Compromise and Release.
From the decision · page 1applicant seeks removal of the June 8, 2021 Joint Order Suspending Action on Compromise and Release, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) declined to approve the proposed Compromise and Release in this case, and set the matter for a further hearing. Applicant contends the WCJ erred in failing to approve the Compromise & Release, and that time is of the essence due to the need to secure ongoing care, which is currently being provided voluntarily by the defendant pending approval of the settlement.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant is currently receiving medical care voluntarily from defendant pending approval of the settlement.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Further delay in approval may result in withdrawal of care or collapse of the settlement, causing irreparable harm to applicant's health and wellbeing.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5002
A copy of the release or compromise agreement signed by both parties shall be filed with the appeals board, which may enter its award based on the agreement.
The Appeals Board may enter an award based on the filed and approved compromise agreement.
From the decision · page 3A copy of the release or compromise agreement signed by both parties shall forthwith be filed with the appeals board. Upon filing with and approval by the appeals board, it may, without notice, of its own motion or on the application of either party, enter its award based upon the release or compromise agreement.
Labor Code section 5001
No release of liability or compromise agreement is valid unless approved by the appeals board or referee.
The settlement requires approval by the Appeals Board to be valid.
From the decision · page 3A copy of the release or compromise agreement signed by both parties shall forthwith be filed with the appeals board. Upon filing with and approval by the appeals board, it may, without notice, of its own motion or on the application of either party, enter its award based upon the release or compromise agreement.
Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applicant met this standard by showing time is of the essence and irreparable harm may result if approval is delayed.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10882, now 10700
The Appeals Board shall inquire into the adequacy of all compromise and release agreements and may set matters for hearing to determine approval.
The Board must ensure the adequacy of the compromise and release agreement before approval.
From the decision · page 4WCAB Rule 10700 states: 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, former § 10882, now § 10700 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's representations that time is of the essence and irreparable harm may accrue if approval of the settlement is delayed, including ongoing voluntary medical care by defendant.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan.
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.