Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Ramirez: A Voluntary 10-Percent Check Did Not Settle the Penalty Question

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 25, 2026

Decision: Ramirez v. Drive Fin. Servs., No. ADJ4579659 (AHM 0089109) (WCAB Sept. 9, 2008) (en banc).

Voluntarily paying a 10-percent penalty did not establish that the defendant had satisfied the statutory self-correction protection. In Ramirez, counsel had already expressly requested penalties before most of the voluntary checks. The opinion explains why “claimed a penalty” is not necessarily the same as “filed a penalty petition.” It also required the judge to explain the appropriate penalty amount rather than assume either 10 or 25 percent controlled. Ramirez, pages 2–7 and footnote 5.

Read the actual settlement deadline

The December 7, 2004 orders approved $57,000 under a compromise and release and $3,000 for prospective vocational rehabilitation in a separate agreement. The C&R waived penalty issues if payment occurred within 30 days of service of its approval order. That was this agreement’s term, not a universal rule for every compensation payment. The defendant conceded the payments were five days late in its reconsideration response; the opinion noted a different lateness statement elsewhere. Ramirez, page 2 and footnote 3.

A penalty can be claimed before a petition

Counsel sent five letters expressly requesting penalties; four preceded the defendant’s penalty checks. Section 5814(b) concerns an employer’s discovery and timely self-correction before the employee claims a penalty. The defendant did not argue it actually met that provision. Footnote 5 explains that a formal petition is not required to “claim” a penalty, distinguishing a mere request for a benefits printout from an express penalty demand. A voluntary 10-percent check alone did not prove the protection applied. Ramirez, pages 2–3, 7 footnote 5.

Neither 10 percent nor the maximum was automatic

The worker sought the statutory maximum rather than the 10 percent paid. The Board held that the penalty amount required discretion and supporting reasons. Amount, duration, prompt correction, payment history, administration and effect on the worker could matter. It did not decide that five days always deserves the minimum, maximum or a 10-percent penalty. Ramirez, pages 4–7.

The unsupported amount required a remand

The WCJ had accepted the voluntary amounts without explaining why they achieved the statutory balance. The Board rescinded and remanded for new findings; it did not substitute a particular final amount. Preserve the actual payment term and service proof, each demand and payment, and the explanation for delay. The companion pages address successive penalties and enforcement fees separately. Ramirez, pages 7–9, 15–16.

Key takeaways

• Prove the due date, service date, payment date, and amount for each benefit.
• Address why the delay was or was not reasonable.
• Compare express penalty demands with the voluntary correction date.
• Ask for reasons supporting the selected penalty amount, not an automatic maximum.