ADJ16687708 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for Reconsideration filed October 17, 2025, reviewed by WCJ report dated October 31, 2025, and decision issued December 30, 2025

Read the official decision →

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailedhead · neck · upper back · mid back · lower back · hips · private parts · brain · thorax

The WCJ and WCAB found no good cause to set aside the settlement based on the evidence, including lack of new medical evidence and no undue influence or duress sufficient to invalidate the settlement.

From the decision · page 8In the applicant's case, it is acknowledged that there is not a permanent and stationary report. However, there is a January 24, 2023 report of Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) Priyanka Ghosh, M.D.8, and a report from treating physician James Petros, M.D. No additional medical reporting has been filed by the applicant. In this case, unlike the situation in Tindle, there has been no new evidence presented that was not in my knowledge at the time the settlement was approved. Therefore, I do not find that there is good cause to set aside the Amended Order Approving due to new evidence made available since the settlement.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

No new medical evidence was presented that was not known at the time of settlement approval.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This distinguished the case from Tindle, where new medical evidence justified setting aside the settlement.

From the decision · page 8In the applicant's case, it is acknowledged that there is not a permanent and stationary report. However, there is a January 24, 2023 report of Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) Priyanka Ghosh, M.D.8, and a report from treating physician James Petros, M.D. No additional medical reporting has been filed by the applicant. In this case, unlike the situation in Tindle, there has been no new evidence presented that was not in my knowledge at the time the settlement was approved. Therefore, I do not find that there is good cause to set aside the Amended Order Approving due to new evidence made available since the settlement.

Applicant's testimony of undue influence and duress was not found to constitute good cause to set aside the settlement.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The WCJ found the statements and actions did not amount to undue influence or duress under California law.

From the decision · page 9In the case at issue, I do not find good cause to set aside the settlement due to undue influence or duress. Even accepting the applicant's statements of the actions and comments made by the defendant's hearing representative, and myself as the trial judge, as accurate, I do not find the statements and actions constitute undue influence or place the applicant in a state of duress at the time he was considering and signing the Compromise and Release.

Service of the WCJ Report and transmission to the Appeals Board on October 31, 2025, provided timely notice to parties.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Ensured the Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909.

From the decision · page 2Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on October 31, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on October 31, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on October 31, 2025.

ADJ16687708 · December 30, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page