What the panel ordered
Reconsideration granted; June 10, 2025 Findings and Award rescinded; new Findings clarify that defendant failed to timely raise wage dispute and that prior award is final and binding; penalties and attorney fees awarded for unreasonable delay in payment.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the June 10, 2025 Findings and Award, which the WCJ issued after trial and prior petitions for reconsideration and review were denied, making the prior award final on October 2, 2024.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold November 9, 2023.
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 defendant unreasonably delayed payment of a final award, justifying penalties and attorney fees under Labor Code sections 5814 and 5814.5.
From the decision · page 10The length of the delay is considerable since the award became final upon denial of review by the California Supreme Court on October 2, 2024, and remains unpaid. (Exh. 7, Supreme Court Order petition for review denied, EAMS 78475965, 10/2/24.) The delay was an intentional, solitary incident unrelated to any claims processing or legitimate business needs. The delayed payment was following a judicial award that would generally allow for payment to be made within 30 days of the decision becoming final. (Report, at p. 11.) We agree with the WCJ's weighing of the considerations appurtenant to the question of unreasonable delay under section 5814 and attorney's fees under section 5814.5.
Defendant failed to timely raise wage dispute in prior proceedings, making the stipulated wage and disability rates final and binding after appellate review was exhausted.
From the decision · page 11FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendant failed to raise the issue of average weekly rate or the permanent and total
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This delay justified the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under Labor Code sections 5814 and 5814.5.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This stipulation was final and binding after defendant exhausted appellate review, precluding relitigation of wages and disability rates.
Defendant failed to raise any dispute regarding wages or permanent total disability rate in prior petitions for reconsideration or appeals.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Failure to timely raise these issues resulted in waiver and finality of the stipulated wage and disability rates.
From the decision · page 11FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendant failed to raise the issue of average weekly rate or the permanent and total
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board, and service of the accompanying report constitutes notice of transmission.
The Board found that the parties were properly notified of the transmission and the 60-day period commenced on July 22, 2025.
From the decision · page 5I. Former 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: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
Labor Code section 5904
A party waives objections to issues not raised timely in prior proceedings, including stipulations on wages and disability rates.
The Board held that defendant waived the right to dispute wages and disability rates by not raising them in prior petitions for reconsideration or trial.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the June 10, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a semi-truck driver/laborer on August 4, 2010, sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, headaches, hearing loss, psyche, hypertension, high blood pressure, heart-left ventricular hypertrophy, chest pain, medication effects, sleep, dysphasia, failed spine surgery, and adjacent segment disease. The WCJ found in relevant part that pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5904, defendant may not raise for the first time a dispute as to the permanent total disability rate that was not raised at the time of trial or upon Petition for Reconsideration. The WCJ also determined that defendant failed in their burden of proof that there are sufficient grounds to set aside stipulation of the parties as to wages, more than five years after the date of injury. The WCJ awarded penalties pursuant to section 5814 and attorney fees pursuant to section 5814.5.
Labor Code sections 5814 and 5814.5
Penalties and attorney fees may be awarded for unreasonable delay in payment of workers' compensation benefits.
The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings that defendant unreasonably delayed payment of a final award, justifying penalties and attorney fees.
From the decision · page 10The length of the delay is considerable since the award became final upon denial of review by the California Supreme Court on October 2, 2024, and remains unpaid. (Exh. 7, Supreme Court Order petition for review denied, EAMS 78475965, 10/2/24.) The delay was an intentional, solitary incident unrelated to any claims processing or legitimate business needs. The delayed payment was following a judicial award that would generally allow for payment to be made within 30 days of the decision becoming final. (Report, at p. 11.) We agree with the WCJ's weighing of the considerations appurtenant to the question of unreasonable delay under section 5814 and attorney's fees under section 5814.5.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
denial of review petitions by appellate courts including California Supreme Court
From the decision · page 8Following the issuance of the Award, defendant exercised its right to seek review of the decision before the WCAB, and later the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. In each instance defendant offered no challenge to applicant's earnings as stipulated by the parties and accepted by the WCJ. And in each instance, defendant's petitions for reconsideration or review were denied, with the Supreme Court issuing its denial on October 2, 2024. (Order Denying Petition for Review, dated October 2, 2024.)
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.