The WCAB has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the OACR despite the five-year limitation on rescinding or altering awards under Labor Code section 5804, as supported by case law and statutory provisions.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers'
compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 22, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in
pertinent part that, pursuant to Labor Code section 5804, the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to act on
applicant's Petition to rescind the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours neutral
This established the mutual intent and basis for the settlement and credits applied in the OACR enforcement.
Permanent disability advances terminated as of January 3, 2021, known to the parties at the time of the C&R execution.
Favours neutral
This fact supported the WCAB's finding that there was no mistake warranting rescission and that credits were properly applied.
Private workspace
Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.
Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.
Defendant's decision to unilaterally withhold a portion of the settlement funds is
particularly puzzling in light of its arguments in answer to applicant's petition for rescission.
Defendant stated that "The C&R provides on page 6 that the settlement amount was `less PDA's'"
and that "There was a clear intent and understanding between the parties that the settlement to be
"less PDAs"... "to date and continuing subject to proof." (Defendant's answer to petition for
rescission, filed April 19, 2022, p. 2.) There is no dispute that permanent disability advances
terminated with the period ending January 3, 2021. (January 17, 2022 C&R, § 6, p. 5; February 4,
2022 updated C&R, § 6, p. 5; Ex. B, notice regarding permanent disability benefits payment
termination dated 6/17/2020, p. 1; Ex. D, notice regarding permanent disability benefits payment
termination dated 1/05/2021, p. 1.)
Favours Applicant prevailed
Applicant's credible testimony supported enforcement of the OACR in his favor.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5804
Labor Code section 5804 limits rescission, alteration, or amendment of awards after five years from the date of injury, but does not limit enforcement jurisdiction.
The WCAB found that while rescission is limited after five years, enforcement of awards remains within its jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers'
compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 22, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in
pertinent part that, pursuant to Labor Code section 5804, the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to act on
applicant's Petition to rescind the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR).
Labor Code section 5300
Labor Code section 5300 vests the WCAB with authority to conduct proceedings for recovery and enforcement of compensation.
The WCAB cited section 5300 to support its jurisdiction to enforce the OACR despite the five-year limitation on rescission.
From the decision · page 5DISCUSSION
We first address the issue of whether the WCAB has jurisdiction to enforce the OACR.
Subject to the limitations of Labor Code4 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]...." (Lab. Code, § 5803.)
Section 5804 provides in pertinent part: "No award of compensation shall be rescinded,
altered, or amended after five years from the date of the injury except upon a petition by a party in
interest filed within such five years...." (Lab. Code, § 5804.) However, the power of the WCAB to
enforce an award is not constrained by the limitations set forth in section 5804 with respect to
rescinding, altering, or amending an award. (Barnes v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 23
Cal.4th 679, 687 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 780]; Kauffman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1969) 273
Cal.App.2d 829, 838-839 [34 Cal.Comp.Cases 373], emphasis added.)
Where, as here, more than five years have elapsed since the date of injury (DOI), the
WCAB is vested with the authority and jurisdiction to conduct proceedings regarding the recovery
of compensation. (Lab. Code, § 5300, et seq., emphasis added.) Section 5300 provides, in
relevant part:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed
Find decisions like this onePanel decision
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
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.