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.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant produced a properly addressed, signed proof of service dated December 11, 2023, for the supplemental job displacement voucher (Voucher 2).
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established the presumption under Evidence Code section 641 that the voucher was mailed and received, shifting the burden to applicant to rebut.
From the decision · page 7For the foregoing reasons, Voucher 2 is presumed to have been received by applicant and applicant's attorney in the ordinary course of mail.
Applicant denied receipt of Voucher 2 by email and testimony but failed to produce believable contrary evidence to rebut the presumption of mailing and receipt.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Applicant's denial alone was insufficient to overcome the presumption, leading to the conclusion that the voucher was timely served.
From the decision · page 7Here, on March 13, 2024, applicant denied receipt of Voucher 2 in the form of an email from applicant's attorney to defense counsel stating, "Neither I nor Applicant had received the
Upon notice of non-receipt, defendant promptly reissued Voucher 2 to applicant.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This prompt action negated any unreasonable delay and supported denial of penalties and attorney fees.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Evidence Code section 641
Presumption that a mailed letter was received under Evidence Code section 641.
The defendant produced proof of service, invoking the presumption that the voucher was mailed and received. Applicant failed to rebut this presumption with believable contrary evidence.
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.
Labor Code section 5814
Penalty discretion under Labor Code section 5814(a) for unreasonable delay or refusal of payment.
The WCJ and Appeals Board found no unreasonable delay warranting penalties despite the non-receipt of the voucher by applicant, as the voucher was reissued promptly upon notice of non-receipt.
Labor Code section 5814.5
Attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 are awarded only after an award and unreasonable delay in payment.
Applicant was not entitled to attorney's fees as there was no unreasonable delay in payment after an award.
From the decision · page 11For similar reasons, applicant is not entitled to attorney's fees. Under Labor Code section 5814.5, "[w]hen the payment of compensation has been unreasonably delayed or refused subsequent to the issuance of an award [...] the appeals board shall, in addition to increasing the order, decision, or award pursuant to Section 5814, award reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing the payment of compensation awarded." (Lab. Code, § 5814.5; see also Ramirez (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324, 1334 (Appeals Board en banc) ("The right to seek attorney's fees under section 5814.5 comes into existence only after applicant has been awarded compensation and defendant has unreasonably delayed payment.")
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Proof of service for the supplemental job displacement voucher dated December 11, 2023, signed and properly addressed, was admitted as evidence and favored defendant as it established the presumption of mailing and receipt under Evidence Code section 641.
From the decision · page 7For the foregoing reasons, Voucher 2 is presumed to have been received by applicant and applicant's attorney in the ordinary course of mail.
Applicant's expert in forensic computers testified that the difference in fonts on the proof of service did not establish alteration or falsification, and the testimony was inconclusive and did not rebut the presumption of mailing and receipt.
Applicant's testimony and email denying receipt of the voucher were insufficient to rebut the presumption of mailing and receipt, favoring defendant.
From the decision · page 7Here, on March 13, 2024, applicant denied receipt of Voucher 2 in the form of an email from applicant's attorney to defense counsel stating, "Neither I nor Applicant had received the
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.