The parties entered into a stipulation that became a final order of the court and the defendant failed to comply with it.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure justified the imposition of penalties and denial of reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4In the instant case, petitioners, defendants, spend five pages of the sixteen-
page petition for reconsideration discussing unnecessary and legally
insignificant history of the case. The facts can be summed up in one sentence
without the need to spill the ink the petitioners do here: The parties entered into
a stipulation that became a final order of the court and it was not paid. There was
no removal filed, no petition to correct a mistake, nothing. Defendant's simply
failed to pay and then, at trial on their failure to comply with the stipulation /
order, claim a credit which, assuming arguendo was valid, was not claimed nor
reserved in the joint stipulation / order. The petitioners are grasping at straws
and trying to make a very simple issue complex. There is no allegation of fraud,
Defendant did not prove good cause for delay or non-compliance with the court order.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of good cause supported the imposition of Labor Code section 5814 penalties.
From the decision · page 7delay. (Ramirez v. WCAB (1970) 35 CCC 383; Waters v. WCAB (2000) 65 CCC
484; Kamel v. West Cliff Medical (2001) 66 CCC 1521 (appeals board en banc)).
The employer must provide a satisfactory explanation of reasonable delay to
avoid the statutory penalty. (Berry v. WCAB (1969) 34 CCC 507.) In the instant
case, defendants have failed to do so. Their spurious argument is they should be
entitled to a credit that they failed to reserve in their stipulation that became the
June 8th and June 9, 2023 award/order. The defendants were afforded due
process with notice and an opportunity to be heard. They were unable to
articulate any good cause for the failure to comply.
Defendant raised a claim for credit only after the stipulation became a final order and after enforcement proceedings began.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Untimely claim for credit was properly denied by the court.
From the decision · page 8stipulation and order. It was raised for the first time at MSC after the order was
not complied with. An employer attempting to claim credit for payments made
under a benefits plan must timely raise the issue. In one case, the defense pointed
out that it had paid benefits under the federal ERISA statutes, which pre-empt
state law, and that therefore superseded the WCJ's findings and award. But this
argument failed, as there was no reason the defense should not have raised the
issue of credit in a timely manner. (Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1981)
46 CCC 1366.) In the instant case, Defendants raised the issue of credits only
after entering into a stipulation and after it became a final order and not until
they were forced to a MSC on the sole issue of enforcement.