What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration is granted, the WCJ's Findings and Order are rescinded and substituted with new Findings and Order clarifying that defendant's payment was not unreasonably delayed or refused, and applicant's petition for penalties is denied.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the November 6, 2025 Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ, which denied applicant's petition for penalties, costs, and sanctions.
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 was found not to be unreasonable or intentional, but rather a reasonable human error promptly corrected, with no evidence of institutional neglect or significant impact on applicant, thus no penalties were warranted.
From the decision · page 5In this case, applicant contends defendant unreasonably delayed payment of the settlement proceeds, such that a Labor Code section 5814 penalty is warranted. The WCJ "... found that Defendants are not subject to Labor Code § 5814 penalties as the delay in dispersing the settlement proceeds was not unreasonable and the delay was promptly corrected." (Report, December 1, 2025, p. 4, § 2). We agree but for the reasons discussed below.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The settlement check was sent to applicant's prior official address of record despite a handwritten address change on the C&R.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This reasonable human error caused the delay in applicant receiving payment, which was promptly corrected upon notification, negating penalty liability.
From the decision · page 6applicant (Def. Exh. D, May 5, 2025), but the delay in applicant's receipt of such payment was inadvertently caused by the settlement check being sent to applicant's prior address, which was also his official address of record. Despite applicant's new address being handwritten on the C&R, it appears to be a reasonable mistake that defendant did not notice the handwritten address change, and, as a result, it is foreseeable that defendant sent the check to applicant's official address of record.
Defendant promptly worked with applicant's attorney to reissue payment after learning of nonreceipt.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This demonstrated no intentional delay or refusal to pay, supporting the finding of no unreasonable delay.
From the decision · page 6Upon notification by applicant's attorney that the settlement was in fact not received by applicant, defendant's attorney promptly tried to determine what caused the nonreceipt and worked with applicant's attorney to reissue payment to applicant, such that we find there was no unreasonable action that would warrant a penalty. (Def. Exhs. D; E; F; G; I; J; K.) The series of
Applicant did not provide evidence of harm from the delay other than missing the 30-day timeline in the C&R.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of evidence of harm or significant impact on applicant supported denial of penalties.
From the decision · page 7Applicant provided no evidence of the effect of the delay other than missing the 30-day timeline set forth in the C&R. By the terms of the C&R, penalties and interest would be waived if payment was made within 30 days of receipt of the OAC&R (C&R, April 2, 2025, p. 7), but the inquiry of whether a delay in compensation is reasonable is not one of strict liability. Payment of compensation after 30 days does not in and of itself automatically warrant a Labor Code section 5814 penalty.
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, 1328-1329 (Appeals Board en banc)
Labor Code section 5814 penalty assessment factors as clarified in Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324, 1328-1329 (Appeals Board en banc).
The WCJ considered the factors including amount and length of delay, inadvertence, history of payments, and effect on the employee to determine no unreasonable delay occurred.
From the decision · page 4(Lab. Code, § 5814 (a).) In Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services (Ramirez) (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324, 1328-
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The delay was due to a reasonable mistake of sending the check to the prior official address of record despite a handwritten address change on the C&R, promptly corrected upon notification.
From the decision · page 6applicant (Def. Exh. D, May 5, 2025), but the delay in applicant's receipt of such payment was inadvertently caused by the settlement check being sent to applicant's prior address, which was also his official address of record. Despite applicant's new address being handwritten on the C&R, it appears to be a reasonable mistake that defendant did not notice the handwritten address change, and, as a result, it is foreseeable that defendant sent the check to applicant's official address of record.
Defendant timely issued applicant's attorney's fees, demonstrating a history of punctual payments.
From the decision · page 7Additionally, the fact that defendant timely issued applicant's attorney's fees, which were timely received, demonstrates a history of punctual payments. (Def. Exh. G, May 12, 2025, p. 2.)
Applicant did not provide evidence of harm from the delay other than missing the 30-day timeline in the C&R.
From the decision · page 7Applicant provided no evidence of the effect of the delay other than missing the 30-day timeline set forth in the C&R. By the terms of the C&R, penalties and interest would be waived if payment was made within 30 days of receipt of the OAC&R (C&R, April 2, 2025, p. 7), but the inquiry of whether a delay in compensation is reasonable is not one of strict liability. Payment of compensation after 30 days does not in and of itself automatically warrant a Labor Code section 5814 penalty.
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.