Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Ramirez: Section 5814 Penalties Require a Record-Based Exercise of Discretion

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 20, 2026

Dee Anne Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services addressed successive payment delays, the size of a penalty under amended section 5814, and fees incurred to enforce payment.

Penalty size was discretionary, not automatic

The judge had to weigh the length, amount, and consequences of the delay, the employer’s conduct, and other circumstances rather than defaulting to the statutory maximum.

Successive penalties required a distinct basis

A later delay could support another penalty, but not when there was genuine doubt and no significant intervening event establishing a new unreasonable failure.

Attorney’s fees followed the enforcement work

Section 5814.5 could reimburse reasonable fees incurred to obtain payment when the unreasonable delay occurred after the provision’s operative date.

Fees were separate from the penalty

The award depended on documented hours and a reasonable rate and did not simply reduce or replace the section 5814 consequence.

Key takeaways

• Create a chronology for each payment due and made.
• Quantify the delayed amount and practical harm.
• Identify any intervening event before asserting a successive violation.
• Document enforcement time and rates separately from the penalty request.