ADJ18122323 · April 6, 2026

The Petition was dismissed as premature because the record was insufficient to determine applicant's understanding of the settlement and adequacy of the settlement. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to treat the Petition as one to set aside the OACR and to develop the record.

From the decision · page 1Applicant, acting in pro per,1 seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 20, 2024.

Applicant did not understand the terms and adequacy of the settlement agreement at the time of signing.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This lack of understanding called into question whether a valid contract was formed, requiring further inquiry and record development.

From the decision · page 6Here, applicant appears to contend that he did not understand the settlement, which calls into question what applicant's understanding was at the time that the settlement was negotiated. If applicant did not understand the terms of the C&R, it calls into question whether a contract was created. Because no hearing was held, the WCJ did not have the opportunity to assess applicant's understanding of the proposed settlement agreement. Although the WCJ states that "There is a panel qualified medical examiner report (PQME) waiver attached [to the C&R]." (Report, p. 2.), there is no evidence in the record regarding who advised applicant about the waiver, nor is there evidence in the record regarding how the WCJ was aware of what applicant knew or understood and what applicant was told with respect to the adequacy of the settlement.

Labor Code section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board; service of the WCJ Report constitutes notice of transmission.

The Board concluded that service of the Report on February 4, 2026, provided actual notice and started the 60-day period for Board action on the Petition.

From the decision · page 4Here, according to the proof of service for the Report by the WCJ, the Report was served on February 4, 2026, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 4, 2026. 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 February 4, 2026.

Labor Code section 5803

The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction to rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award for good cause upon notice and opportunity to be heard.

The Board returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to consider the Petition as one to set aside the OACR and to develop the record.

From the decision · page 4II. Subject to the limitations of 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]... At any time, upon notice and after the opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order. decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor." (Lab. Code, § 5803.) To safeguard injured workers from agreeing to unfair or unwise settlements, section 5001 provides that no settlement is valid unless the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or a

Labor Code section 5001

No settlement is valid unless approved by the WCAB or a referee to safeguard injured workers from unfair settlements.

The Board emphasized the need for adequate inquiry into the settlement to ensure fairness and mutual consent.

From the decision · page 5workers' compensation referee approves the settlement. (Lab. Code, § 5001; Steller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 175, 180 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 1146], see Johnson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 964, 973 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 362].)

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10700(b)

The WCAB shall inquire into the adequacy of all Compromise and Release agreements and may set the matter for hearing to determine approval or disapproval.

The Board noted the regulatory mandate for inquiry into settlement adequacy to protect injured workers.

From the decision · page 5"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, § 10700(b).) This inquiry should carry out the legislative objective of safeguarding the injured worker from entering into unfortunate or improvident releases as a result of, for instance, economic pressure or lack of competent advice. (Claxton v. Waters (2004) 34 Cal.4th 367, 373 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 895]; Sumner v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 965, 972-973.) The worker's knowledge of and intent to release particular benefits must be established separately from the standard release language of the form. (Claxton, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 373.)

Claxton v. Waters (2004) 34 Cal.4th 367

For a compromise and release agreement to be effective, there must be mutual consent and meeting of the minds.

The Board highlighted the requirement for mutual understanding and consent in settlement agreements.

From the decision · page 5"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, § 10700(b).) This inquiry should carry out the legislative objective of safeguarding the injured worker from entering into unfortunate or improvident releases as a result of, for instance, economic pressure or lack of competent advice. (Claxton v. Waters (2004) 34 Cal.4th 367, 373 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 895]; Sumner v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 965, 972-973.) The worker's knowledge of and intent to release particular benefits must be established separately from the standard release language of the form. (Claxton, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 373.)

San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928

The Board may act to develop the record with new evidence if neither side has presented substantial evidence for a decision, especially in favor of the employee.

The Board returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and record development due to insufficient evidence.

From the decision · page 7The Appeals Board also has a constitutional mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases" and may not leave matters undeveloped where it is clear that additional discovery is needed. (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403-404 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) The "Board may act to develop the record with new evidence if, for example, it concludes that neither side has presented substantial evidence on which a decision could be based, and even that this principle may be appropriately applied in favor of the employee." (San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 937-938 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].)

Applicant's lack of understanding of the settlement terms and adequacy of the settlement

From the decision · page 6Here, applicant appears to contend that he did not understand the settlement, which calls into question what applicant's understanding was at the time that the settlement was negotiated. If applicant did not understand the terms of the C&R, it calls into question whether a contract was created. Because no hearing was held, the WCJ did not have the opportunity to assess applicant's understanding of the proposed settlement agreement. Although the WCJ states that "There is a panel qualified medical examiner report (PQME) waiver attached [to the C&R]." (Report, p. 2.), there is no evidence in the record regarding who advised applicant about the waiver, nor is there evidence in the record regarding how the WCJ was aware of what applicant knew or understood and what applicant was told with respect to the adequacy of the settlement.