What the panel ordered
Denied applicant's Petition for Reconsideration; applicant takes nothing further as payment was made per Compromise and Release.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant after Findings and Order denying further payment; WCJ report recommended denial; WCAB timely acted on petition within 60 days of transmission.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ found the applicant not credible and found that defendant complied with Labor Code section 4651(a) by making payment electronically to an account authorized by the applicant; therefore, defendant was not obligated to reissue payment and penalties and sanctions did not apply.
From the decision · page 2Trial was held on September 30, 2024. The issue was whether Travelers was obligated to reissue payment to the applicant and, if so, should penalties, sanctions and interest a per Labor Code 5814 and 5813 apply.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's testimony was inconsistent and found not credible by the WCJ; defendant's witness testimony was found credible.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Credibility determination supported denial of reissuance obligation and penalties.
From the decision · page 2Applicant testified in his own behalf. He was found not credible due to inconsistencies in his testimony. On November 1, 2024, a Findings and Order issued that applicant take nothing as payment remitted per the Compromise and Release. Travelers was not obligate[d] to re-issue payment to the injured worker.
Applicant authorized electronic payment via MyTravelers portal using phone number linked to a third party (Maria Larios).
Favours Defendant prevailed
Defendant complied with Labor Code section 4651(a) by making payment to an account authorized by applicant, negating obligation to reissue payment.
From the decision · page 2the applicant signed up through Mytravelers portal for electronic benefit payments. (Ex. I) the applicant utilized mobile number (720) 481-4227 for payments to be issued via Zelle. (Ex. G) Payment for the Compromise and Release was made out to the applicant via electronic payment. (Ex. J)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4651(a)
Labor Code section 4651(a) regarding electronic payment of disability indemnity benefits.
Defendant complied by making payment electronically to an account authorized by applicant; applicant did not request payments not be electronically deposited.
From the decision · page 4(Lab. Code, § 4651(a).) Applicant contends that defendant did not correctly make payments to him. Travelers
Labor Code sections 5813 and 5814
Labor Code sections 5813 and 5814 regarding penalties and sanctions for payment disputes.
Applicant sought penalties and sanctions, but defendant was not obligated to reissue payment; thus penalties and sanctions did not apply.
From the decision · page 2Trial was held on September 30, 2024. The issue was whether Travelers was obligated to reissue payment to the applicant and, if so, should penalties, sanctions and interest a per Labor Code 5814 and 5813 apply.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony found not credible due to inconsistencies; defendant's witness found credible.
From the decision · page 2Applicant testified in his own behalf. He was found not credible due to inconsistencies in his testimony. On November 1, 2024, a Findings and Order issued that applicant take nothing as payment remitted per the Compromise and Release. Travelers was not obligate[d] to re-issue payment to the injured worker.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.