What the panel ordered
The WCAB rescinded the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order of November 4, 2022, and awarded applicant penalties, interest, and attorney's fees for unreasonably delayed payment of settlement proceeds.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order of November 4, 2022, which denied penalties. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation to deny reconsideration. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further study the issues and issued this decision after 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 delay in payment of settlement proceeds was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not provide evidence of mailing the payment or mitigating factors. Therefore, penalties, interest and attorney fees were awarded to applicant.
From the decision · page 4Here, the delay in payment of settlement proceeds owed to applicant was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not offer any evidence regarding any of the mitigating Ramirez factors. While defendant introduced evidence that payment was issued, that does not establish that defendant actually sent the check to applicant via US mail. Defendant is entitled to rely on the US Postal Service for mailing correspondence, but in this case, defendant offered no evidence that it put the payment in the mail. Defendant provided no testimonial evidence from claims adjusters or supervisors regarding the purported payment. Therefore, we find a penalty appropriate to the facts herein, plus interest and attorney's fees.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The delay in payment of settlement proceeds was over 80 days, which was unreasonable.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This unreasonable delay justified awarding penalties, interest and attorney fees to applicant.
From the decision · page 4Here, the delay in payment of settlement proceeds owed to applicant was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not offer any evidence regarding any of the mitigating Ramirez factors. While defendant introduced evidence that payment was issued, that does not establish that defendant actually sent the check to applicant via US mail. Defendant is entitled to rely on the US Postal Service for mailing correspondence, but in this case, defendant offered no evidence that it put the payment in the mail. Defendant provided no testimonial evidence from claims adjusters or supervisors regarding the purported payment. Therefore, we find a penalty appropriate to the facts herein, plus interest and attorney's fees.
Defendant did not provide evidence that payment was mailed to applicant, nor testimonial evidence from claims adjusters or supervisors regarding payment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of evidence of mailing or explanation for delay supported finding of unreasonable delay and penalty award.
From the decision · page 4Here, the delay in payment of settlement proceeds owed to applicant was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not offer any evidence regarding any of the mitigating Ramirez factors. While defendant introduced evidence that payment was issued, that does not establish that defendant actually sent the check to applicant via US mail. Defendant is entitled to rely on the US Postal Service for mailing correspondence, but in this case, defendant offered no evidence that it put the payment in the mail. Defendant provided no testimonial evidence from claims adjusters or supervisors regarding the purported payment. Therefore, we find a penalty appropriate to the facts herein, plus interest and attorney's fees.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324 (Appeals Board en banc)
Labor Code section 5814(a) penalty discretion factors as outlined in Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324 (Appeals Board en banc)
The Board applied the Ramirez factors to assess the penalty for delayed payment, finding the delay unreasonable and unmitigated by defendant evidence.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Labor Code section 5814(a) states:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant did not provide evidence that payment was mailed to applicant, nor testimonial evidence from claims adjusters or supervisors regarding payment.
From the decision · page 4Here, the delay in payment of settlement proceeds owed to applicant was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not offer any evidence regarding any of the mitigating Ramirez factors. While defendant introduced evidence that payment was issued, that does not establish that defendant actually sent the check to applicant via US mail. Defendant is entitled to rely on the US Postal Service for mailing correspondence, but in this case, defendant offered no evidence that it put the payment in the mail. Defendant provided no testimonial evidence from claims adjusters or supervisors regarding the purported payment. Therefore, we find a penalty appropriate to the facts herein, plus interest and attorney's fees.
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.