ADJ9840613 · August 28, 2025

The Board found no evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence, mutual mistake, or lack of capacity to enter the agreement, and that the stipulations were binding absent good cause to set aside.

From the decision · page 5Here, applicant alleges that the Stipulations with Request for Award was "procured by [f]raud" and that defendant was "acting in bad faith" when they failed to provide the DEU Consultative Rating to the WCJ. (Petition, p. 2.) Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10166(b), however, consultative ratings are not admissible in judicial proceedings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10166(b).) Further, we find no evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence, mutual mistake of fact, mistake of law, invalidity of execution, or incompetency herein.

No evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence, mutual mistake, or lack of capacity to enter the settlement agreement was found.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported the denial of the Petition to Set Aside the Stipulations with Request for Award.

From the decision · page 5Here, applicant alleges that the Stipulations with Request for Award was "procured by [f]raud" and that defendant was "acting in bad faith" when they failed to provide the DEU Consultative Rating to the WCJ. (Petition, p. 2.) Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10166(b), however, consultative ratings are not admissible in judicial proceedings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10166(b).) Further, we find no evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence, mutual mistake of fact, mistake of law, invalidity of execution, or incompetency herein.

Applicant's occupational group number is 214 as previously agreed and approved by the WCJ, not 112 as alleged by applicant.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported the correction of clerical errors and the substitution of the new RF&O.

From the decision · page 5Applicant contends that the WCJ's finding of occupational group 112 is improper. According to the initial Stipulations with Request for Award, which were approved by the WCJ on April 17, 2017, applicant's occupational group number is 214. As the occupational group number was previously agreed upon and approved by the WCJ, the fact that occupational group number 112 is listed on the stipulations page in the March 17, 2025 Pretrial Conference Statement is irrelevant. We also find it important to note that the stipulations page from the March 17, 20215 Pretrial Conference Statement was not signed by all parties.

Provided permanent and stationary report with findings regarding impairment and apportionment.

From the decision · page 2Mays and schedule a reevaluation, defendant filed a "Petition for Dismissal of PQME and Issuance of a New Panel." Defendant's request was granted, a new QME panel was issued, and Dr. John Foley was selected as the replacement PQME. Dr. Foley evaluated the applicant on January 5, 2023, and March 7, 2024, with corresponding reports issuing thereafter, including a permanent and stationary report with findings regarding impairment and apportionment. (Applicant Exhibit 2; Court Exhibit 7.) Dr. Christian Foglar, applicant's primary treating physician, issued his own findings regarding impairment and apportionment in a report dated June 13, 2024. (Applicant Exhibit 6, p. 1.) Upon issuance of the above reports, the parties once again proceeded to settle the claim via Stipulations with Request for Award. The new settlement was based upon a 25% permanent disability, which was a compromise "between [the] QME and PTP reports[,]" and inclusive of the

Issued findings regarding impairment and apportionment in a report dated June 13, 2024.

From the decision · page 3prior 17% permanent disability. (Court Exhibit 5, Stipulations with Request for Award, p. 7.) The Stipulations with Request for Award was approved by the WCJ on January 2, 2025. (Court Exhibit 6.)

Evaluated applicant multiple times and issued a permanent and stationary report dated January 16, 2017.

From the decision · page 2FACTS Applicant claimed that, while employed by defendant as a data entry clerk through October 27, 2014, she sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right shoulder. The parties proceeded with discovery and retained Dr. James D. Mays as the orthopedic panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME). Dr. Mays evaluated applicant on July 7, 2015, and September 28, 2016, with corresponding reports issuing thereafter, including a permanent and stationary report dated January 16, 2017. The parties ultimately agreed to settle the claim via Stipulations with Request for Award. The settlement was based upon a 17% permanent disability rating for the right shoulder. The Stipulations with Request for Award were approved by the WCJ on April 17, 2017. Per the ratings string listed on page 7 of the Stipulations with Request for Award, applicant's occupational group is 214. On December 15, 2017, applicant filed a Petition to Reopen for New and Further Injury. (Court Exhibit 3.) On May 8, 2019, applicant completed a reevaluation with Dr. Mays. On August 10, 2020, after several failed attempts to depose Dr.

County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114

Stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown to set aside, including fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or lack of capacity.

The Board applied Weatherall to find no good cause to set aside the stipulations.

From the decision · page 4II. Turning now to the merits of the Petition, pursuant to County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1], stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. As defined in Weatherall, "A stipulation is `An agreement between opposing counsel... ordinarily entered into for the purpose of avoiding delay, trouble, or expense in the conduct of the action,' (Ballentine, Law Dict. (1930) p. 1235, col. 2) and serves `to obviate need for proof or to narrow range of litigable issues' (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 1415, col. 1) in a legal proceeding." (Weatherall, supra, at 1118.) The party seeking to set aside an agreement after it has become final must make a showing of good cause. Good cause includes fraud, duress, undue influence, mutual mistake of fact, mistake of law, invalidity of execution, incompetency, or minority at the time of execution of the agreement. (See California Workers' Compensation Law (Cont. Ed. Bar 4th Ed.) § 16.61 et seq.; see also Argonaut Ins. Exch. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Bellinger) (1958) 49 Cal.2d 706 [23

Lab. Code, 5705

Burden of proof to set aside a settlement rests on the party seeking relief by a preponderance of the evidence.

Applicant had the burden to prove good cause to set aside the stipulations.

From the decision · page 5As the moving party, applicant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, she should be relieved from the settlement agreement that was entered into with defendant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence"].)

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10166(b)

Consultative ratings are not admissible in judicial proceedings.

The Board found no fraud based on the non-admissibility of consultative ratings.

From the decision · page 5Here, applicant alleges that the Stipulations with Request for Award was "procured by [f]raud" and that defendant was "acting in bad faith" when they failed to provide the DEU Consultative Rating to the WCJ. (Petition, p. 2.) Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10166(b), however, consultative ratings are not admissible in judicial proceedings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10166(b).) Further, we find no evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence, mutual mistake of fact, mistake of law, invalidity of execution, or incompetency herein.

Consultative ratings are not admissible in judicial proceedings under WCAB Rule 10166(b).

From the decision · page 5Here, applicant alleges that the Stipulations with Request for Award was "procured by [f]raud" and that defendant was "acting in bad faith" when they failed to provide the DEU Consultative Rating to the WCJ. (Petition, p. 2.) Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10166(b), however, consultative ratings are not admissible in judicial proceedings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10166(b).) Further, we find no evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence, mutual mistake of fact, mistake of law, invalidity of execution, or incompetency herein.