Lopez: A Workers’ Comp Settlement Needed the Medical Record and Accurate Payment Terms

Review the primary official source.

In Lopez v. ADP TotalSource Group, Inc./Stately Men, Inc., a WCAB panel granted reconsideration, rescinded an order approving compromise and release, and returned the case to the trial level. The record did not permit an adequacy review because the settlement omitted material payment information and not all relied-on medical reports were filed.

The original settlement left material fields blank

The parties submitted a $50,000 compromise and release. The temporary-disability-paid field and the deduction for any temporary-disability overpayment were blank, even though the defense later asserted a $2,419.30 overpayment and sought a credit.

After the approval order, the parties submitted amended settlement documents and jointly requested further action. The panel treated those submissions as supplemental pleadings.

The reconsideration petition was timely

The order was served first on the designated defense party and later on all parties. The panel measured the petition period from proper service on the parties and concluded that the June 30 petition was timely after June 12 service.

The panel also explained the then-applicable section 5909 transmission framework and acted on the sixtieth day as extended to the next business day.

Adequacy review required the complete medical basis

A workers’ compensation settlement is not valid until approved, and the adjudicator must inquire into adequacy. The settlement identified several medical reports as its basis, but not all were filed, preventing meaningful review.

WCAB Rule 10700 requires the filing party to submit the relevant treating, AME, QME, and other medical reports not previously filed. The panel could not resolve adequacy from the settlement form alone.

The remedy was rescission and remand

The panel granted reconsideration, rescinded the approval order, and returned the case for consideration of the amended documents and a new decision. It did not approve the requested credit itself.

The decision shows why payment history, deductions, lien treatment, body parts, and medical foundations should be reconciled before an approval request. It is a panel decision, persuasive rather than binding precedent.