What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board panel denies the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Orders that defendant timely served the supplemental job displacement voucher and that penalties and attorney fees are not warranted.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 12, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the WCJ, which denied penalties and attorney fees related to the timeliness of a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV). The WCJ found defendant timely served the voucher and denied penalties. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to deny reconsideration, which the Appeals Board panel adopted.
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 Appeals Board found that defendant produced proof of service for the voucher, invoking the presumption under Evidence Code section 641 that the voucher was mailed and received. Applicant failed to produce believable contrary evidence to rebut this presumption. The WCJ and Appeals Board found no unreasonable delay warranting penalties or attorney fees.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 12, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the F&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found defendant produced proof of service for a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV), and under Evidence Code section 641, it is presumed that the defendant timely mailed the SJDV and the SJDV was received, and defendant acted reasonably and timely in replacing the voucher upon notice of actual non-receipt. The WCJ also found that though the voucher was not in fact received by applicant, applicant failed in their burden of proof to rebut the presumption and was not entitled to a penalty.