> >
| Case Name | Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services | |
|---|---|---|
| Date | 09/09/2008 | |
| Note | [En Banc] Although, under new section 5814(a), a successive penalty may still be awarded for an unreasonable delay in making a prior penalty payment, it should not be awarded where the defendant had genuine doubt as to its liability or where there is no legally significant intervening event. | |
| Citation | ADJ4579659 | |
| WCC Citation | WCC 34202008 CA |
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA (AHM 0089109) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Case No. ADJ4579659 DEE ANNE RAMIREZ, Applicant, vs. DRIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES; and ONE BEACON INSURANCE CO. , Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant was employed by Drive Financial Services as a collections specialist from August 9, 2000 through February 15, 2001. Therefore, there was no basis to consider what factors might be balanced in determining the amount of the penalty. The current version of section 5814 was enacted on April 19, 2004, and became operative on June 1, 2004. Moreover, section 5814. 5 fees should be allowed only for legal services rendered in "enforcing" the unreasonably delayed prior award, and not for any other purpose.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.
