What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; OACR remains valid and enforceable.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order upholding the validity and enforceability of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR); WCAB panel reviews and denies reconsideration.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold November 30, 2023.
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.
Section 5814(c) presumes that any accrued claims for penalty are resolved by approval of a C&R unless expressly excluded; applicant's penalty claim was not excluded in the C&R, so it is deemed resolved and not recoverable.
From the decision · page 7Here, applicant asserts that she is owed penalties in connection with this settlement; applicant does not otherwise seek to set aside any other terms of the agreement. However, section 5814(c) makes clear that if pending claims for penalties are not specifically excluded in the C&R, then an injured worker is not entitled to them. Applicant's Petition for Penalties was outstanding at the time of the settlement and was not excluded by the terms of the settlement. Thus, once the WCJ approved the C&R, it is presumed that the Petition for Penalties was resolved.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's Petition for Penalties was outstanding at the time of settlement and was not excluded by the terms of the C&R.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Section 5814(c) presumes that any accrued claims for penalty are resolved by approval of a C&R unless expressly excluded; thus, applicant's penalty claim is deemed resolved.
From the decision · page 7Here, applicant asserts that she is owed penalties in connection with this settlement; applicant does not otherwise seek to set aside any other terms of the agreement. However, section 5814(c) makes clear that if pending claims for penalties are not specifically excluded in the C&R, then an injured worker is not entitled to them. Applicant's Petition for Penalties was outstanding at the time of the settlement and was not excluded by the terms of the settlement. Thus, once the WCJ approved the C&R, it is presumed that the Petition for Penalties was resolved.
Applicant's claim was denied and no compensation for medical benefits was awarded.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Section 5814(a) requires an award of compensation and a delay in payment; since no award was made, penalties do not apply.
From the decision · page 7As quoted above, section 5814(a) requires an injured worker to show that payment of compensation was delayed and an award of compensation. That is, an injured worker must show that they were entitled to payment for a benefit such as medical treatment, receive an award of compensation for that benefit, and demonstrate that payment of compensation for that benefit was delayed. Here, applicant's claim was denied, and applicant did not show that she was entitled to any benefits, including medical treatment. It is clear from the language of the C&R that applicant's claim was denied, that defendant did not pay any compensation for medical treatment, and that no compensation for medical benefits was awarded. Therefore, section 5814 does not apply, and defendant was not liable for any penalties.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5814(c)
Section 5814(c) presumes that any accrued claims for penalty are resolved by approval of a C&R unless expressly excluded.
Applicant's penalty claim was not excluded in the C&R, so it is deemed resolved and not recoverable.
From the decision · page 7Here, applicant asserts that she is owed penalties in connection with this settlement; applicant does not otherwise seek to set aside any other terms of the agreement. However, section 5814(c) makes clear that if pending claims for penalties are not specifically excluded in the C&R, then an injured worker is not entitled to them. Applicant's Petition for Penalties was outstanding at the time of the settlement and was not excluded by the terms of the settlement. Thus, once the WCJ approved the C&R, it is presumed that the Petition for Penalties was resolved.
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.