CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ2353136 (STK 0213635)
Regular
Dec 19, 2016

AHMED SHOAIB vs. CAMBELL SOUP COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over the payment of a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant, Ahmed Shoaib, settled a discrimination claim against Campbell Soup Company for $55,000. Campbell Soup unilaterally withheld over $19,000 from the applicant's share of the settlement for alleged payroll taxes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Campbell Soup's petition for reconsideration, finding that the company unreasonably delayed payment by taking a unilateral credit. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision and the awarded 25% penalty for the delayed payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and AwardLabor Code Section 132aAmended Petition for PenaltyDelayed PaymentLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Contract EnforcementUnilateral Credit
References
Case No. ADJ4579659
Significant
Sep 09, 2008

Dee Anne Ramirez, Applicant vs. Drive Financial Services, One Beacon Insurance Co.

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, holds that penalties under Labor Code section 5814(a) are discretionary, successive penalties are permissible under specific circumstances, and attorney's fees under section 5814.5 apply to private employers for unreasonable delays occurring after January 1, 2003, regardless of the injury date.

WCABLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5penaltyattorney feesen bancreconsiderationdiscretionary penaltysuccessive penaltyunreasonable delay
References
Case No. ADJ9932467
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that "Return-To-Work" supplemental payments under Labor Code section 139.48 are not "compensation" as defined by Labor Code section 3207. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a second penalty under Labor Code section 5814 for the employer's delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher, as that delay did not cause a delay in a compensable benefit. The Board found that the applicant's penalty claim for the voucher delay was already resolved and that imposing a second penalty for a non-compensable benefit delay would be unfair and against the principle of balancing justice.

Labor Code section 139.48Return-To-Work supplemental paymentscompensation definitionLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814 penaltyLabor Code section 4658.7 voucherSupplemental Job Displacement Benefitcompromise and release agreementGage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.unreasonable delay
References
Case No. ADJ2192154 (LBO 0345063)
Regular
Nov 12, 2010

IRMA ZAMORA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, Adjusted By SCIF CONTRACT SERVICES

The Board granted reconsideration to address ambiguities in the original award. Defendant sought credit for prior permanent disability payments and argued a penalty for delayed compensation should only apply from the date the disability increased, not the entire delayed amount. The Board agreed defendant is entitled to credit for prior payments. However, due to unclear findings on attorney fees and a confusing reference to a "self-assessed penalty," the Board rescinded the original decision and returned the case for further proceedings and a clarified new decision.

WCABpetition to reopenpermanent disabilitypenaltyattorney feescredit for paymentsagreed medical evaluatorLabor Code section 4650Labor Code section 5814unreasonable delay
References
Case No. ADJ6692365
Regular
Jul 15, 2011

JERRY HARTLEY vs. BART, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the original award. The Board found the defendant liable for a 10% penalty due to an unreasonable delay in paying permanent disability indemnity. Additionally, the applicant is entitled to a 15% increase in his permanent disability rate, effective January 13, 2006, because the employer failed to issue the required notice. The Board affirmed other aspects of the original award, including previously assessed penalties and vocational rehabilitation benefit settlements.

Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 4658Supplemental Job Displacement Benefitvocational rehabilitationpermanent disability indemnitycumulative trauma injuryindustrial injuryunreasonable delayPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ2529270 (MON0205624)
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

ZOI FOVOS vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT permissibly self insured c/o SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision that found an award was paid timely without penalties. Applicant contended the defendant failed to include interest with the award payment, entitling them to penalties and attorney fees. The Board found the WCJ's decision failed to address the timeliness of interest payment and the applicability of penalties under Labor Code sections 5814 and 5814.5. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings and a new decision regarding potential penalties and attorney fees for the delayed interest payment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardPenaltyAttorney's FeeInterest on AwardLabor Code Section 4650Labor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5
References
Case No. ADJ6973825
Regular
May 21, 2012

MONICA BENARD vs. JENNY CRAIG, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a penalty imposed on Jenny Craig for unreasonably delaying authorization for applicant Monica Benard's chiropractic treatment. The WCJ found a 25% penalty for the delay, which Jenny Craig appealed, arguing the delay was due to the applicant's choice of a chiropractor outside their Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Appeals Board affirmed the unreasonable delay finding but reduced the penalty to 20% of the delayed treatment's value, citing a failure in case management rather than intentional disregard. Jurisdiction was reserved for the parties to adjust the penalty amount.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMonica BenardJenny CraigSedgwick CMSADJ6973825ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 5814Medical Provider Network (MPN)chiropractic treatment
References
Case No. ADJ7275781
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

DAINA ROBERTSON vs. VETERINARY CENTERS OF AMERICA, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns a WCJ's imposition of a 25% penalty for defendant's failure to include a 10% self-imposed penalty under Labor Code section 4650(d) when paying a previous award. The defendant argued no penalty was due as they disputed indemnity periods and paid within fourteen days of the award. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the supplemental award, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This action was taken because the record was unclear regarding whether the defendant's dispute over indemnity payments constituted a genuine dispute that would excuse the 10% increase under section 4650(d).

Labor Code section 4650(d)Supplemental Findings and Awardtemporary total disability indemnitypermanent disability indemnityindustrial injuryleft ankleregistered veterinary technicianAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)permanent and stationarysurgery
References
Case No. VNO 113665 VNO 113666 VNO 113667 VNO 113668
Regular
Aug 06, 2007

MARIA A. GARCIA vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LIBRARY SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a WCJ's award of penalties and attorney fees against the City of Los Angeles for delayed payment of home healthcare charges. The Board found that while payments were delayed, Labor Code section 5814(e) bars penalties when the only dispute concerns the payment of a provider's bill, not a denial of treatment. Furthermore, the Board found no basis to assess penalties under Labor Code section 5814.6 for a pattern of business practice violation.

Labor Code 5814Labor Code 5814.5Labor Code 5814.6unreasonable delayhome health carebilling disputemedical treatmentnursing servicespenaltyattorney fees
References
Case No. ADJ8835104
Regular
Feb 21, 2023

SHERRY DULANEY vs. JOHN MUIR MEDICAL CENTER, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that Labor Code section 5814 penalties for delayed compensation are payable to the applicant, not their attorney. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to award penalties due to the defendant's unreasonable delay in paying a settlement award. The issue of separate section 5814.5 fees was deferred for further consideration. The decision confirms the applicant's entitlement to penalties for late payment of compensation.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5814penaltiesunreasonable delayattorney feesStipulation with Request for AwardAdjudication Numberpermanent disabilityindustrial injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,185 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational