ADJ10931911 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the December 27, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Read the official decision →

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.

Penalties under Labor Code §5814Remanded

The WCJ's decision failed to address the issue of defendant's liability for costs and sanctions due to failure to object to invoices, so the WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ's decision failed to address the sole issue presented for trial, which, again, was: "Whether defendants are liable for costs, monetary sanctions, and attorney fees for their failure to object to Cost Petitioner's invoices." (MOH, October 9, 2023, p. 3.) In accordance with section 5313, Hamilton, and Garza, supra, we therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ to issue a new decision addressing the issue submitted for trial. In the new decision, the WCJ must make findings upon all facts involved in the controversy, cite to admitted evidence in support of each finding, and identify the authority upon which the opinion is based.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code sections 4622, 4603.3; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, section 9794

Defendant must pay or object to medical-legal invoices within 60 days or face penalties and interest under Labor Code sections 4622, 4603.3, and AD Rule 9794.

Failure to pay or object within 60 days results in waiver of objections and liability for reasonable value plus penalties and interest.

Labor Code section 5307.9

Section 5307.9 prohibits payment for services provided within 30 days of a request for copies of records already in possession of employer or insurer.

The WCJ incorrectly barred payment under section 5307.9, which was not the issue before the court.

From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Cost petitioner contends that, in the F&O, the WCJ failed to address the sole issue before the court, namely, whether defendant was liable for costs, monetary sanctions, and attorney fees as a result of its failure to object to cost petitioner's invoices. As noted above, the WCJ found that cost petitioner's request for payment was barred by section 5307.9 because it had obtained and/or copied records that were either: 1) already in the parties' possession, or 2) not requested by applicant's attorney. (F&O, p. 2; Opinion on Decision, pp. 3-4.) Section 5307.9 establishes the general rules for compensability of copy and related services. Section 5307.9 prohibits "payment for services provided within 30 days of a request" by, among others, an injured worker's authorized representative for copies of records in "the

Labor Code section 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc)

The WCJ's decision failed to address the issue submitted for trial and lacked findings and reasons, requiring reconsideration.

From the decision · page 4A WCJ is required to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (Blackledge) (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-622 (Appeals Board en banc).) The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking

ADJ10931911 · March 19, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

About this page