What the panel ordered
The WCAB denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's denial of sanctions against defendant for bad faith delay in payment.
Cost petitioner Physical Rehabilitation Services, Inc., and Arbi Mirzaians, D.C., sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Orders issued October 22, 2025, which denied sanctions against defendant for alleged bad faith delay in payment.
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 WCAB found no evidence that defendant's delays in payment were bad faith or frivolous, but rather routine errors, thus sanctions were not warranted.
From the decision · page 7After careful consideration of the record, we agree with the WCJ that cost petitioner failed to demonstrate that defendant's actions were frivolous or in bad faith so as to warrant sanctions pursuant to section 5813. Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to timely respond to payment requests but these delays were routine errors, not bad faith or frivolous conduct.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact led the WCAB to deny sanctions under Labor Code section 5813.
From the decision · page 7section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786.2 Although it appears that defendant may not have timely responded to cost petitioner's July 5, 2024 demand for payment and second review request, these two delays in response to payment requests by cost petitioner, while incorrect, can be construed as routine errors. There is no evidence in the record that these mistakes by defendant, even if negligent, rose to the level of bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay that are contemplated by section 5813.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5813
Sanctions under Labor Code section 5813 may be imposed for bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
The WCAB applied this standard to determine that defendant's conduct did not meet the threshold for sanctions.
From the decision · page 5section 5813, which states, in pertinent part, that
WCAB Rule 10786
The framework for medical-legal dispute sanctions includes liability for attorney's fees, costs, and sanctions for bad faith actions under Labor Code sections 4622, 4603.3, 4603.6 and related rules.
The WCAB considered this rule in evaluating the cost petitioner's claims for sanctions.
From the decision · page 5WCAB Rule 10786 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10786) sets forth the framework for a
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant's delays in responding to payment requests were routine errors, not bad faith or frivolous conduct.
From the decision · page 7section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786.2 Although it appears that defendant may not have timely responded to cost petitioner's July 5, 2024 demand for payment and second review request, these two delays in response to payment requests by cost petitioner, while incorrect, can be construed as routine errors. There is no evidence in the record that these mistakes by defendant, even if negligent, rose to the level of bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay that are contemplated by section 5813.
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.