ADJ15467076 · April 29, 2024

The defendant failed to comply with the stipulation and order, did not prove good cause for delay, and improperly claimed credit after the order became final, justifying denial of reconsideration and imposition of penalties.

From the decision · page 4The undersigned issued Findings and Orders and an Opinion on Decision on February 7, 2023, in favor of the Applicant on all issues, namely that (1) The defendant has failed to comply with the Stipulation & Order dated June 8, 2023 and (duplicate) Order dated June 9, 2023, (2) The applicant is entitled to penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and costs because the Stipulation and Order was not complied with, and (3) The defendant is not entitled to credit for TD payments allegedly made per County Code Section 6.20.070 and allegedly made prior to the dates of the Orders of June 8, 2023 and June 9, 2023. Thereafter, Defendants filed the instant Petition for Reconsideration on March 1, 2024.

The parties entered into a stipulation that became a final order of the court and the defendant failed to comply with it.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This failure justified the imposition of penalties and denial of reconsideration.

From the decision · page 4In the instant case, petitioners, defendants, spend five pages of the sixteen- page petition for reconsideration discussing unnecessary and legally insignificant history of the case. The facts can be summed up in one sentence without the need to spill the ink the petitioners do here: The parties entered into a stipulation that became a final order of the court and it was not paid. There was no removal filed, no petition to correct a mistake, nothing. Defendant's simply failed to pay and then, at trial on their failure to comply with the stipulation / order, claim a credit which, assuming arguendo was valid, was not claimed nor reserved in the joint stipulation / order. The petitioners are grasping at straws and trying to make a very simple issue complex. There is no allegation of fraud,

Defendant did not prove good cause for delay or non-compliance with the court order.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Lack of good cause supported the imposition of Labor Code section 5814 penalties.

From the decision · page 7delay. (Ramirez v. WCAB (1970) 35 CCC 383; Waters v. WCAB (2000) 65 CCC 484; Kamel v. West Cliff Medical (2001) 66 CCC 1521 (appeals board en banc)). The employer must provide a satisfactory explanation of reasonable delay to avoid the statutory penalty. (Berry v. WCAB (1969) 34 CCC 507.) In the instant case, defendants have failed to do so. Their spurious argument is they should be entitled to a credit that they failed to reserve in their stipulation that became the June 8th and June 9, 2023 award/order. The defendants were afforded due process with notice and an opportunity to be heard. They were unable to articulate any good cause for the failure to comply.

Defendant raised a claim for credit only after the stipulation became a final order and after enforcement proceedings began.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Untimely claim for credit was properly denied by the court.

From the decision · page 8stipulation and order. It was raised for the first time at MSC after the order was not complied with. An employer attempting to claim credit for payments made under a benefits plan must timely raise the issue. In one case, the defense pointed out that it had paid benefits under the federal ERISA statutes, which pre-empt state law, and that therefore superseded the WCJ's findings and award. But this argument failed, as there was no reason the defense should not have raised the issue of credit in a timely manner. (Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1981) 46 CCC 1366.) In the instant case, Defendants raised the issue of credits only after entering into a stipulation and after it became a final order and not until they were forced to a MSC on the sole issue of enforcement.

County of Sacramento v. WCAB (Weatherall) (2000) 65 CCC 1

A stipulation entered into by parties and ordered by the court is binding and must be enforced unless good cause is shown.

The stipulation in this case was ordered by the court and became a final order, which the defendant failed to comply with.

From the decision · page 5A. A Stipulation of the Parties Will be Given Great Weight

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (Pointer) (1980) 45 CCC 410

When payment of compensation has been unreasonably delayed or refused, a penalty may be imposed under Labor Code section 5814.

The defendant unreasonably delayed payment and was penalized approximately 20%.

Defendant failed to prove compliance with court order and failed to articulate good cause for delay in payment.

From the decision · page 6The Applicant does not have to prove that they did not receive benefits. The employer must prove they did. In the instant case, they have failed to prove they complied with the court's order. The burden of proof when seeking an California Labor Code section 5814 penalty is initially on the applicant to present a prima- facie case that a delay in benefits has occurred. When a delay is shown by the applicant, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show good cause for the