Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Ramirez: Delayed Compensation Penalties and Enforcement Fees Require Separate Findings

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 25, 2026

Dee Anne Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services followed payments made five days after the settlement’s agreed deadline and examined the size of the penalty, possible successive penalties, and attorney fees for enforcement.

Two settlement payments were late

The approved agreements required payments of $57,000 and $3,000 and waived penalty issues if payment occurred within thirty days. The insurer conceded that both payments were five days late and later voluntarily paid ten-percent penalties.

The penalty amount required discretion

Section 5814 authorized an increase up to the statutory ceiling rather than an automatic maximum. The judge had to consider the circumstances identified by the Board and explain the reason for the amount selected.

A successive penalty remained possible but limited

An unreasonable delay in paying an earlier penalty can itself support relief, but genuine doubt about liability or the absence of a legally significant intervening event may defeat a second penalty.

Enforcement fees are additional to the penalty

When an award has been unreasonably delayed and counsel performs work to enforce it, section 5814.5 fees are based on reasonable hours and rates and are added to the worker’s recovery. The Board rescinded and returned the matter for new findings.

Key takeaways

• Prove the due date, service date, payment date, and amount for each benefit.
• Address why the delay was or was not reasonable.
• Treat successive penalties as a separate event-based inquiry.
• Document the hours devoted specifically to enforcing the prior award.