What the panel ordered
The WCAB grants the Petition for Reconsideration, rescinds the May 7, 2025 Findings and Award, and returns the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued May 7, 2025, by the WCJ, which denied penalties for delay in payment but awarded attorney's fees; the WCAB grants reconsideration and returns the matter for further proceedings.
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.
The WCJ found no unreasonable delay by defendant in reimbursing EDD and no basis for penalties, but awarded attorney's fees without sufficient findings of bad faith; the WCAB found insufficient evidence to support penalties or attorney's fees and remanded for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on May 7, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&A, in pertinent part, found that defendant did not unreasonably delay payment of temporary disability, permanent disability, or reimbursement to Employment Development Department (EDD), but found that applicant was entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5813 and awarded attorney's fees with the parties to adjust.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant's conduct through July 25, 2024, when EDD signed a stipulated agreement, was reasonable and not subject to penalties.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCJ found no basis to award penalties for delay up to that date, favoring defendant.
From the decision · page 5In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated: "Considering the record, this is not a situation where the defendant was an idle actor. The defendant attempted to retrieve the necessary information to issue accurate reimbursement to EDD. The defendant cannot be faulted by the inactivity of EDD. As such, the court finds no basis to award penalties for an unreasonable delay to reimburse EDD." (Opinion on Decision, p. 2.) Applicant does not appear to seek penalties based upon defendant's initial conduct up through July 25, 2024, when EDD signed a stipulated agreement. It appears that defendant's conduct through that point was reasonable.
No evidence explains the cause of delay in payment to EDD after July 25, 2024.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The record is devoid of evidence to support penalties or attorney's fees, leading to remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 3Per the Pre-trial Conference Statement, applicant sought to call the person most knowledgeable about the delayed payment to EDD. The adjuster who testified at trial had no knowledge of what caused the delay in this case as she was not assigned to the file when the delay occurred. (Id. at pp. 6-7.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.
The WCAB timely acted on the petition within the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 3Former section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
Labor Code section 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc)
WCJ must make and file findings on all facts and state reasons for determinations, supported by substantial evidence.
The WCJ's findings on penalties and attorney's fees were not sufficiently supported by evidence.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The adjuster who testified had no knowledge of the cause of delay; no exhibits explain the delay; the record is devoid of evidence to determine penalties.
From the decision · page 3Per the Pre-trial Conference Statement, applicant sought to call the person most knowledgeable about the delayed payment to EDD. The adjuster who testified at trial had no knowledge of what caused the delay in this case as she was not assigned to the file when the delay occurred. (Id. at pp. 6-7.)
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.