ADJ9947955 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Decision after reconsideration affirms June 30, 2022 Findings & Award amounts but defers compensability of certain invoices to WCJ for further proceedings

Petition for reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues; decision after reconsideration issued affirming prior award amounts but deferring some issues to WCJ for further proceedings

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.

Other disputed issueMixed

The Board affirmed the amounts awarded to cost petitioner but deferred the compensability of certain invoices to the WCJ for further proceedings, noting that subpoenas for some records were reasonable and others were disallowed pending further review.

From the decision · page 8Accordingly, we affirm the amounts awarded to cost petitioner but defer the issues regarding the subpoenas that the WCJ disallowed, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The subpoenas for records from the Law Office of Fari Rezai were reasonable as the attorney's decision to use subpoenas rather than written requests was within discretion and not required to seek records first by written release.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Other evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

The Board found that subpoenas for records from the employer or claims administrator were not required before issuing subpoenas duces tecum, favoring cost petitioner.

From the decision · page 7Here, the WCJ found that the subpoenas for records of Laurel Wellness and Nursing Center and the records of Gallagher Basset were non-compensable under section 5307.9 and Rule 9982(d)(1). He concluded that cost petitioner did not submit evidence that a prior request to the employer or their insurer was made with respect to those records. As explained above, requesting the records from the employer or the claims administrator prior to issuing a subpoena duces tecum is not required prior to issuing a subpoena duces tecum. Thus, the fact that the subpoena duces tecum issued without first requesting records from the employer and claims administrator is immaterial, and cost petitioner is entitled to payment for the services it provided.

Other evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

The Board found that issuance of multiple subpoenas to the same medical facility was excessive and disallowed some charges, favoring defendant.

From the decision · page 8Turning to the subpoena duces tecum to Arrowhead Medical Center, the WCJ concluded that issuance of three subpoenas to Arrowhead Medical Center was excessive and allowed payment for one subpoena, and determined that the other two subpoena duces tecum were unreasonable. He also concluded that the subpoena for the billing records from Pacifica Orthopedics was unreasonable. However, the Order Referral from applicant's attorney (Exhibit 3) reflects that applicant's attorney requested records from all three locations and requested the billing records. Regarding the subpoenas for Healthpoint Medical Group, Daydream Acupuncture, Downtown LA Ambulatory Surgical Center, Accident Injury & Family Therapy, and Southern California Diagnostic Medical Group, it appears that the subpoenas were not duplicative.

ADJ9947955 · November 21, 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

What proof carried it

About this page