What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as moot; Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration vacated; WCJ order approving compromise and release allowed to stand but future notification to WCAB required.
Petition for Reconsideration filed June 27, 2022; WCJ issued Findings of Fact June 3, 2022; WCJ issued Report and Recommendation July 12, 2022; WCAB issued Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration August 26, 2022; WCJ approved compromise and release February 3, 2023 while matter pending at WCAB; WCAB issues Decision After Reconsideration October 29, 2025.
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 for Reconsideration became moot because the WCJ issued an order approving compromise and release while the matter was pending at the Appeals Board, which was contrary to the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961.
From the decision · page 2WCAB Rule 10961 then states: After 15 days have elapsed from the filing of a petition for reconsideration, a workers' compensation judge shall not issue any order in the case until the Appeals Board has denied or dismissed the petition for reconsideration or issued a decision after reconsideration. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) Here, the WCJ chose to prepare a Report pursuant to subdivision (a) and transmit ADJ14497155 to the Appeals Board. Nonetheless, in contravention of the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961, the WCJ issued an order approving a compromise and release on February 3, 2023, while the matter was still pending at the Appeals Board. No notice was ever given to the Appeals Board that there was a settlement pending. In particular, applicant's attorneys Vyshnavi Chandrasekaran (CSB #: 256050) and Michael Burgis & Associates, P.C., did not notify the Appeals Board that the Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn. This lack of action by the parties and the WCJ causes delay and wastes the resources of the Appeals Board.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ issued an order approving compromise and release on February 3, 2023 while the matter was pending at the Appeals Board.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This action was contrary to the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961, which prohibits a WCJ from issuing any order after a petition for reconsideration is filed until the Appeals Board has ruled on the petition.
From the decision · page 2WCAB Rule 10961 then states: After 15 days have elapsed from the filing of a petition for reconsideration, a workers' compensation judge shall not issue any order in the case until the Appeals Board has denied or dismissed the petition for reconsideration or issued a decision after reconsideration. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) Here, the WCJ chose to prepare a Report pursuant to subdivision (a) and transmit ADJ14497155 to the Appeals Board. Nonetheless, in contravention of the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961, the WCJ issued an order approving a compromise and release on February 3, 2023, while the matter was still pending at the Appeals Board. No notice was ever given to the Appeals Board that there was a settlement pending. In particular, applicant's attorneys Vyshnavi Chandrasekaran (CSB #: 256050) and Michael Burgis & Associates, P.C., did not notify the Appeals Board that the Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn. This lack of action by the parties and the WCJ causes delay and wastes the resources of the Appeals Board.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10961
WCAB Rule 10961 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10961)
The rule prohibits a WCJ from issuing any order after a petition for reconsideration is filed until the Appeals Board has ruled on the petition.
From the decision · page 2WCAB Rule 10961 then states: After 15 days have elapsed from the filing of a petition for reconsideration, a workers' compensation judge shall not issue any order in the case until the Appeals Board has denied or dismissed the petition for reconsideration or issued a decision after reconsideration. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) Here, the WCJ chose to prepare a Report pursuant to subdivision (a) and transmit ADJ14497155 to the Appeals Board. Nonetheless, in contravention of the mandatory requirement in WCAB Rule 10961, the WCJ issued an order approving a compromise and release on February 3, 2023, while the matter was still pending at the Appeals Board. No notice was ever given to the Appeals Board that there was a settlement pending. In particular, applicant's attorneys Vyshnavi Chandrasekaran (CSB #: 256050) and Michael Burgis & Associates, P.C., did not notify the Appeals Board that the Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn. This lack of action by the parties and the WCJ causes delay and wastes the resources of the Appeals Board.
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.