Lopez Lopez: A Settlement Notice Challenge Needed a Hearing and Evidence

An employer’s challenge can make an approved workers’ compensation settlement feel uncertain again. The next question is what the reviewing order actually does. In Lopez Lopez v. I.Y.V.E. LLC, No. ADJ14364219 (Cal. WCAB Oct. 20, 2026), the Appeals Board dismissed a reconsideration petition as premature and returned the dispute for a hearing on a possible set-aside request. Dismissal ended that petition’s immediate review; the notice dispute still needed an evidentiary decision.

The employer disputed hearing notice and employment

Anabel Lopez Lopez claimed an injury on June 12, 2020, and filed her application in March 2021. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund joined the case in 2022. Jesus Lua was joined individually as a beneficial interest holder of I.Y.V.E. LLC in 2023. Those procedural steps matter because the later challenge came from Lua and the business, while the worker and the fund opposed reconsideration.

A proposed Compromise and Release was filed on September 23, 2025. The judge issued a notice of intent to approve it. Lua’s October 21 objection was late and unverified, but the judge nevertheless suspended action three days later. When the matter came for trial on June 30, 2026, Lua did not appear. The judge overruled the objection and proceeded with approval. Lopez Lopez reproduces that sequence from the judge’s report.

The opinion’s opening describes an approval order dated June 30 and issued July 2; the quoted report describes issuance July 1 and proofs of service filed July 2. Those descriptions should be kept with their respective documents. Lua filed his petition on August 6, asserting that a changed address had prevented proper notice of the hearing and that he had not employed the worker.

The Board required a hearing rather than deciding the allegations

The judge recommended denying reconsideration. The Board instead focused on the missing record needed to evaluate a set-aside request. It explained that all parties retain a right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to present evidence. A fair hearing includes calling and cross-examining witnesses, examining exhibits and offering rebuttal.

The opinion relied on Perez v. Chicago Dogs, 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 830, 836–839 (2025), an en banc decision explaining liberal construction of pleadings and California’s policy favoring decisions on the merits. An objection’s technical deficiencies and the factual merits of a notice challenge were therefore separate questions. Lopez Lopez begins the due-process analysis, which continues through the following pages.

A set-aside ground needs proof in an admitted record

The Board described good cause to set aside an order as dependent on the circumstances. It cited Johnson v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 2 Cal.3d 964, 975 (1970), among the authorities recognizing grounds such as mutual mistake, duress, fraud, undue influence and procedural irregularities. Listing a possible ground is only the beginning; the circumstances surrounding execution and approval need examination.

The opinion also relied on Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475–476 (2001) (en banc). A decision must rest on admitted evidence, with the judge identifying the evidence that supports it. An appellate reviewer needs that record to understand and evaluate the result. Here, the Board said that without a record it could not evaluate whether grounds existed to set aside the award. Lopez Lopez connects that evidentiary requirement to Lua’s allegations.

The trial judge was to decide the set-aside request first

The Board dismissed the reconsideration petition as premature. It returned the matter so the judge could treat the filing as a petition to set aside the approval order, conduct further proceedings and create a record. After the judge issued a decision, an aggrieved party could timely seek reconsideration. That sequence is the operative result, rather than a finding that Lua’s account of notice or employment was true.

For an injured worker, the useful next step is to read the approval order, the challenge and the Board’s order together. The actual relief requested and the proceeding ordered determine what counsel needs to address. A service dispute calls for the notices and delivery history; an employment dispute calls for its own evidence. Our guide to an employer’s notice challenge separates those questions. The financial-pressure guide addresses a different claimed ground for undoing a settlement.