What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicants after a Findings and Award was issued and a prior Reconsideration was denied; the WCJ issued a Supplemental Findings and Award and denied further reconsideration.
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 actual indemnity was timely paid after reconsideration denial, and section 4650 does not apply to interest payments, so no penalty was awarded under section 4650(d).
From the decision · page 8No 10% penalty was paid by the Defendant under this section. The award was paid on 3/16/2022 after Reconsideration was denied on 3/7/2022. Hence the actual indemnity under the award was timely paid. It is only the interest that was not paid, and sec. 4650 does not apply to interest under Sec. 5800.
The Defendant paid the award but delayed payment of interest for nearly 1.5 years without excuse, justifying a 25% penalty under section 5814.
From the decision · page 3On 8/23/2023 the undersigned issued a Supplemental Findings and Award in favor of Petitioners awarding a 25% penalty under sec. 5814 for unreasonable failure to pay interest on a final award. The undersigned concluded that there was no excuse or explanation why such a benefit should have been delayed for nearly 1 years.
No evidence of bad faith or frivolous tactics was presented, so sanctions under section 5813 were denied.
From the decision · page 7There is no evidence presented that would demonstrate any bad-faith action or tactics that were frivolous or intended to cause unnecessary delay in this matter. At best it can only be determined that the delay in this matter was an oversight. There is no evidence to support a finding of sanctions.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Interest on the award was paid on 6/13/2023, nearly 1.5 years after the award payment on 3/16/2022.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This delay was unreasonable and without excuse, justifying a 25% penalty under Cal. Lab. Code sec. 5814.
From the decision · page 7There is no evidence presented that excuses the payment of interest on the award 15 months after the Opinion and Order Denying Reconsideration was issued. Interest was paid on 6/13/2023. Since there is no evidence to justify this significant delay, the undersigned will award a 25% penalty under sec. 5814. The Defendant obviously put their mind to the payment of the award on or about 3/16/2022 and did not pay interest.
No evidence of bad faith or frivolous tactics was presented to support sanctions under Cal. Lab. Code sec. 5813.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of such evidence led to denial of sanctions.
From the decision · page 7There is no evidence presented that would demonstrate any bad-faith action or tactics that were frivolous or intended to cause unnecessary delay in this matter. At best it can only be determined that the delay in this matter was an oversight. There is no evidence to support a finding of sanctions.
The actual indemnity under the award was timely paid on 3/16/2022 after reconsideration denial on 3/7/2022.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timely payment meant no penalty was due under Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4650(d) for untimely benefits payment.
From the decision · page 8No 10% penalty was paid by the Defendant under this section. The award was paid on 3/16/2022 after Reconsideration was denied on 3/7/2022. Hence the actual indemnity under the award was timely paid. It is only the interest that was not paid, and sec. 4650 does not apply to interest under Sec. 5800.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Lab. Code sec. 5814
Penalty for unreasonable delay or refusal to pay compensation, up to 25%.
Applied to late payment of interest on award.
Cal. Lab. Code sec. 5813
Sanctions for bad faith or frivolous tactics causing unnecessary delay.
No sanctions awarded due to lack of evidence of bad faith.
From the decision · page 7There is no evidence presented that would demonstrate any bad-faith action or tactics that were frivolous or intended to cause unnecessary delay in this matter. At best it can only be determined that the delay in this matter was an oversight. There is no evidence to support a finding of sanctions.
Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4650(d)
Automatic 10% penalty for untimely payment of benefits.
Not applied to interest payments; no penalty awarded under this section.
From the decision · page 8No 10% penalty was paid by the Defendant under this section. The award was paid on 3/16/2022 after Reconsideration was denied on 3/7/2022. Hence the actual indemnity under the award was timely paid. It is only the interest that was not paid, and sec. 4650 does not apply to interest under Sec. 5800.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidence of bad faith or frivolous tactics to support sanctions claim.
From the decision · page 7There is no evidence presented that would demonstrate any bad-faith action or tactics that were frivolous or intended to cause unnecessary delay in this matter. At best it can only be determined that the delay in this matter was an oversight. There is no evidence to support a finding of sanctions.
No evidence to justify the delay in payment of interest for nearly 1.5 years.
From the decision · page 7There is no evidence presented that excuses the payment of interest on the award 15 months after the Opinion and Order Denying Reconsideration was issued. Interest was paid on 6/13/2023. Since there is no evidence to justify this significant delay, the undersigned will award a 25% penalty under sec. 5814. The Defendant obviously put their mind to the payment of the award on or about 3/16/2022 and did not pay interest.
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.