CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns Macy's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award based on a stipulation. Macy's claims mutual mistake of fact and clerical error regarding permanent disability indemnity and attorney fees. The Board denies the petition, finding no mutual mistake and that Macy's error stemmed from a lack of diligence in drafting the stipulation. The Board emphasizes that stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown, which Macy's failed to demonstrate.
URSULA KRAMER vs. MACY'S WEST, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES is a workers' compensation case decided in San Francisco. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in San Francisco.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns Macy's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award based on a stipulation. Macy's claims mutual mistake of fact and clerical error regarding permanent disability indemnity and attorney fees. The Board denies the petition, finding no mutual mistake and that Macy's error stemmed from a lack of diligence in drafting the stipulation. The Board emphasizes that stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown, which Macy's failed to demonstrate.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.