What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied; WCJ's Findings and Order affirmed.
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 no evidence of bad faith by defendant despite untimely payment; defendant paid penalty and interest after notice and consultation with legal department, negating bad faith claim.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant's claims examiners credibly testified they first received notice of the bill on 3/11/2025, not on 12/16/2024 when the bill was marked duplicate, explaining the delay in payment.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This credible testimony negated a finding of bad faith or frivolous delay by defendant, supporting denial of attorney's fees and sanctions.
From the decision · page 9As explained in the undersigned's Opinion, in this instance, although defendant received the bill on 12/16/2024, the documentary and testimonial evidence suggests the medical-legal bill at issue was marked as a duplicate, which may have delayed receipt of the bill by the claims adjuster. Both claims examiners credibly testified at trial that they first received notice of the bill on 3/11/2025, and