The WCAB also indicated that, although the defendant intended to resolve the application for internal injuries, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the defendant had fraudulently decided to enter into the compromise and release because the transaction had been developed jointly by the parties and that the defendant had an obligation and opportunity to ensure that the written terms of the transaction properly reflected its understanding of the transaction agreement. Debra files a petition to reopen her right to a new agreement for a higher amount. However, an aggrieved worker may, instead, pay out some of his rights and retain them. This agreement is called a "fixed price." When an aggrieved worker is contacted by the insurance company through a C-R regulation, he or she must carefully consider the value of his case. An injured worker should try to negotiate an agreement and not rush to reach an agreement. The WCAB justified this decision by the fact that the compromise and release in their overall reading did not indicate the mutual intention of the parties to settle the applicant`s internal prejudice, if, in paragraph 1 of the compromise and release, no internal prejudice was included in the right to cumulative trauma, paragraph 3 of the compromise and discharge claim expressly limits the comparison to the only claims listed in paragraph 1, regardless of the contrary language in the settlement agreement, and the handwritten language added by the parties to the compromise and release agreement, which states that the transaction agreement removes all liabilities/claims against the defendant, was not sufficient to discourage the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3. In addition, California legislation gives courts a great deal of leeway to approve the C-R agreements. After the Cal. Lab. Code 5001 can be approved for compromise and unblocking at any stage of the legal process, including at a mandatory status conference, conciliation conference or workers` compensation procedure. A California judge may object to a C-R rule that is considered unfair to the worker. Do not expect sympathy from the WCAB if you do not include a date of injury or the body, system or condition part in paragraph 1 C-R.
This proceeding reiterates that it is the responsibility of lawyers/representatives to carefully draft and/or review the written transaction document to ensure that it fully and fully reflects the transaction agreement. THE PRATIC POINT: The unequivocal removal of the recent unanimous decision [Commissioner Razo agreed with the majority of this decision] is that lawyers/representatives are required to carefully consider the details in the development and verification of a compromise and unblocking (C-R) to ensure that the written terms of the RC accurately reflect the full deal. The scope of the transaction contract must be defined in detail in paragraph 1 of the C-R form. Each injury date and the injured body part, condition or corresponding system to be included in the count must be clearly stated. If a dispute subsequently arises over the size of the transaction, paragraph 1 of Form C-R is checked in the document or amendment, despite the contrary language. A judge verifies the amount of the count and the medical report and approves the agreement. Unlike a STIPS agreement, if a compromise and an unlocking regime (C-R) are made, the worker benefits from a final flat-rate scheme. However, in order to obtain this lump sum, the employee waives several rights.