What the panel ordered
The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that defendant unreasonably delayed payment of permanent disability indemnity and assessed a 10 percent penalty under Labor Code section 5814 against the entire award of permanent disability benefits.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order issued on July 3, 2001, which was granted by the Board on September 21, 2001, leading to an en banc decision by the full Board.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Defendant failed to present any evidence explaining the delay, thus the Board affirmed the penalty for unreasonable delay in payment.
From the decision · page 11411 3, 2001. In that decision, the WCJ detennined that defendant unreasonably delayed payment of
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to present any evidence explaining the delay in payment of permanent disability indemnity from February 21, 2001 to March 28, 2001.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without evidence explaining the delay, the Board affirmed the penalty for unreasonable delay under Labor Code section 5814.
From the decision · page 5161 Here, defendant proffered no testimonial or documentary evidence to explain its delay in
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Kerley, supra, 36 Cal.Comp.Cases 157; Berry v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 381 [34 Cal.Comp.Cases 507, 508-509]
Once a delay in payment of compensation has been shown by the applicant, the defendant has the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the delay, including whether it was inadvertent or a solitary instance of human error.
The Board applied this standard to reject defendant's claim of inadvertent clerical error as a defense for the delay.
From the decision · page 41 applicant's failure to provide any evidence of "institutional neglect," defendant would, in effect,
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant testified about the delay and lack of payment after February 21, 2001, and defendant failed to provide evidence explaining the delay.
From the decision · page 2191 At the trial of June 14, 2001, applicant was the only witness. He testified that he called the
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.