News and Insights

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur sit amet sem id nisi porta rutrum.

EDWARD ZEPEDA vs. CARNATION CO.; METLIFE INS. CO. OF CONNECTICUT, Administered By TRAVELERS

CARNATION CO.; METLIFE INS. CO. OF CONNECTICUT, Administered by TRAVELERS EDWARD ZEPEDA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAEDWARD ZEPEDA, Applicant,vs.CARNATION CO.; METLIFE INS. CO. OF CONNECTICUT,Administered by TRAVELERS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7347492(Pomona District Office)OPINION AND ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued August 20, 2012, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that defendant’s conduct “was unreasonable considering the information that time was of the essence in payment [of the Compromise and Release settlement sums] and also for being unavailable when initial contact was attempted to obtain payment.” The WCJ denied applicant’s claim for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813 noting that “it does not appear defendant’s conduct was in bad faith, intended to delay or to delay intentionally.” The WCJ ordered defendant to pay applicant $10,000.00 as a penalty pursuant to Labor Code section 5814(a) and to “pay $80.00 as applicant’s additional costs resulting from the delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5811.” The WCJ’s Findings “allowed” applicant counsel to submit a petition for fees associated with obtaining the penalty and that the attorney fee issue should be adjusted by the parties with jurisdiction reserved for any unresolved dispute.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred: (1) by finding that defendant engaged in unreasonable conduct regarding the payment pursuant to the Compromise and Release Agreement arguing that any delay was caused by an inadvertent typographical error in the address of applicant’s counsel complicated by applicant counsel’s actions; and (2) by ordering defendant to pay applicant $10,000.00 as a penalty pursuant to Labor Code section 5814(a) arguing that there is no basis for the award of this penalty. Defendant further argues that there

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Get exclusive access to in-debt interviews.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *