This expert commentary examines four recent panel decisions issued by the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board involving parties bound by trial stipulations despite later claims that the stipulations were not accurate, a commutation of a 100% award to allow applicant to purchase a rental property, and no exception to the commercial traveler rules for “kind of dumb” travelers:

• Trial Stipulations. In psychiatric injury case, employer is bound by trial stipulation that the injury was industrial, despite claim that applicant worked for less than six months:  Garcia v. Santa Clara Warehouse 2007 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 192.
• Trial Stipulations. Employer bound by trial stipulation that “duty belt” presumption applied to applicant’s low back injury, despite claim that applicant used shoulder holster
• Commutation of Award. Commutation of applicant’s 100% award to enable her to buy a rental property held to be in her best interest.  O’Hagan v. Los Angeles Unified School District 2007 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 205.
• Commercial Traveler. No exception to the “commercial traveler rule” for “kind of dumb” travelers:  Esposito v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 2007 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 217.

Access the complete commentary on lexis.com