What the panel ordered
Applicant's petition for reconsideration denied; Defendant's petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's Findings and Award of March 2, 2022 amended.
Petitions for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award of March 2, 2022, were filed by both applicant and defendant.
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 WCJ found interest payable from 2/22/21 to 2/25/21 and penalties under Labor Code section 5814 and attorney fees under section 5814.5. The WCAB denied applicant's petition for reconsideration but granted defendant's petition, finding defendant had genuine doubt about liability and did not unreasonably refuse payment, thus no penalties or attorney fees under these sections were warranted.
From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of March 2, 2022, wherein it was found that "Interest was payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula from the date of the Order issued on 2/22/21 until paid on 2/25/21" (Finding No. 5), "A penalty under [Labor Code] section 5814 is payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula on the unpaid interest" (Finding No. 6), and "A reasonable attorney's fee per [Labor Code] section 5814.5 is payable to the Law Office of Vic Redula...." (Finding No. 7.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This delayed the due date for payment of attorney fees and interest, affecting when interest could accrue.
The Order issued on 2/22/21 required payment of attorney fees, making interest payable from that date.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Interest accrues only from when payment is due and payable under Labor Code section 5800.
Defendant had a nonfrivolous legal argument that payment of attorney fees was made by placing funds in trust within 30 days of the Order Approving Compromise and Release.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This created genuine doubt about liability, negating unreasonable refusal penalties under Labor Code section 5814.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5814
Labor Code section 5814 mandates penalties when compensation has been unreasonably delayed or refused.
Defendant's genuine doubt about liability meant no unreasonable refusal to pay interest, so no penalties were warranted.
From the decision · page 3when compensation has been "unreasonably delayed or refused, either prior to or subsequent to the issuance of an award...." (Lab. Code, § 5814, subd. (a) [emphasis added].) As we stated in our en banc opinion in Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324, 1331 (Appeals Bd. en banc), "[S]ection 5814(a)... provides that a penalty is payable only `[w]hen payment of compensation has been unreasonably delayed or refused.' (Emphasis added.) A delay or a refusal to pay is not `unreasonable' if the defendant had `genuine doubt from a medical or legal standpoint as to [its] liability.' (Kerley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 223, 230 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 152].)"
Labor Code section 5800
Labor Code section 5800 requires interest on due and unpaid payments from the date they become due and payable.
Interest was payable from the date the Order to pay attorney fees was issued on 2/22/21, not from the date of the Compromise and Release approval on 2/10/20.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant's genuine doubt from a legal standpoint about liability for interest payment.
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.