What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as premature; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ.
Applicant filed a petition for reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by the WCJ on June 24, 2021, seeking to set aside the OACR; the WCAB dismissed the petition as premature and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
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.
The petition was dismissed as premature because the record was insufficient to determine if there was a meeting of the minds on the C&R terms and whether the settlement was adequate; the matter was returned to the trial level for a hearing to develop the record and assess applicant's understanding and the adequacy of the settlement.
From the decision · page 4Here, applicant contends that there was not a meeting of the minds as to the body parts being settled, specifically applicant claims that there was no mention of "trunk" as a body part prior to its inclusion in the C&R. However, the limited evidentiary record bars a meaningful review of applicant's contentions. Applicant also contends that his attorney did not explain the C&R to him, did not explain future medicals to him, and that he felt pressured by his attorney to sign the C&R. Applicant improperly attached documents to his Petition that appear to be emails between applicant and his prior counsel.5 If applicant did not understand the C&R, or understand that the