Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board, with proper notice to parties.
The WCAB found that notice of transmission was not properly provided to parties, affecting the timing of the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 4Former Labor Code2 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed
denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab.
Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
Lab. Code, 5905
Service of petition for reconsideration must be made forthwith upon all adverse parties.
The WCAB found that service was made on defendant's administrator and former attorneys but not on current legal representative; however, the failure did not prejudice defendant's ability to respond.
From the decision · page 6Pursuant to section 5905, a party petitioning for reconsideration is required to serve a copy
of the petition "forthwith upon all adverse parties." (Lab. Code § 5905.) Cost petitioner served the
Petition on defendant's administrator Omaha and defendant's former attorneys CW Law. As the
WCJ and defendant's legal representative assert, defendant's current legal representative was not
served with the petition. The failure to properly serve all adverse parties may constitute grounds
for dismissal of the petition. (See State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(Paquette) (1983) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 475 [1983 Cal. Wrk. Comp, LEXIS 3831] (writ den.).)
Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders, (2011) 76 Cal. Comp. Cases 228 (Appeals Board en banc)
Interpreter fees must be reasonable to recover charges for interpreter services.
The WCAB recognized the burden on the interpreter to prove reasonableness of fees charged for interpreter services.
From the decision · page 7Turning to the merits of the petition, the interpreter has the burden of proving among other
things that the fees charged were reasonable in order to recover charges for interpreter services.
(Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders, (2011) 76 Cal. Comp. Cases 228, 234 (Appeals Board en banc).)
In this matter, it is apparent that petitioner is entitled to payment for the translation services
provided to applicant. The issue is the amount of the payment given the fact that the translation
services are not related to medical treatment.