California WCABPanel decision

ADJ11097484 · November 23, 2021

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's award of interest but rescinded the penalty and attorney's fees, finding defendant did not act unreasonably in paying the Compromise and Release (C&R).

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 0
Authorities named: 1
District office: Santa Rosa

What the panel ordered

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's award of interest but rescinded the penalty and attorney's fees, finding defendant did not act unreasonably in paying the Compromise and Release (C&R).

Defendant filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision, which the Appeals Board reviewed and issued a Decision After Reconsideration.

Read the official decision →

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.

Penalties under Labor Code §5814Mixed

The Appeals Board found that defendant did not act unreasonably in paying the C&R, so the penalty and attorney's fees were rescinded, but interest was affirmed.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Defendant did not unreasonably delay payment to applicant pursuant to the C&R

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact led to rescinding the penalty and attorney's fees under Labor Code sections 5814 and 5814.5

From the decision · page 5

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Other evidencefavours neutral

Applicant was evacuated from her usual residence due to wildfires, causing delay in receiving checks

From the decision · page 3of the wildfires that were burning in the vicinity at the time. This is shown by the testimony

Testimony and credibilityfavours neutral

Failure of timely communication by both parties regarding the missing checks

From the decision · page 4The above part of the WCJ's analysis undermines her imposition of a penalty under the factual circumstances described in her Opinion on Decision. Although we disagree that a penalty is justified here, we agree with the WCJ's statements that there was a failure of timely communication by both parties regarding the missing checks; that there is no evidence of a history of delayed payments; that the situation was an isolated instance that defendant sought to promptly correct; and that all of this happened in the context wherein applicant was not at her usual mailing address because she had been evacuated on account of the Kincaid wildfires. We further note that a certain amount of delay is inherent when a stop-payment is issued on a check that has already been timely mailed. Unfortunately, applicant's bank imposed significant charges for bounced checks and insufficient funds. However, the regulation of banks is not within the Appeals Board's purview.

treatment coursefavours Defendant prevailed

Defendant promptly corrected the isolated payment delay

From the decision · page 4The above part of the WCJ's analysis undermines her imposition of a penalty under the factual circumstances described in her Opinion on Decision. Although we disagree that a penalty is justified here, we agree with the WCJ's statements that there was a failure of timely communication by both parties regarding the missing checks; that there is no evidence of a history of delayed payments; that the situation was an isolated instance that defendant sought to promptly correct; and that all of this happened in the context wherein applicant was not at her usual mailing address because she had been evacuated on account of the Kincaid wildfires. We further note that a certain amount of delay is inherent when a stop-payment is issued on a check that has already been timely mailed. Unfortunately, applicant's bank imposed significant charges for bounced checks and insufficient funds. However, the regulation of banks is not within the Appeals Board's purview.