ADJ10877533 · May 1, 2023

The WCJ and WCAB found that the lien claimant failed to prove that the interpreting services were actually provided and reasonably necessary, based on contradictory evidence from the applicant's statements to Dr. Sofia and lack of witness testimony to verify the services.

From the decision · page 1In the Findings and Order of February 4, 2020, the workers' compensation judge ("WCJ") found that on January 19, 2017, applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and that the lien claimant, Joyce Altman Interpreting, failed to prove that it actually provided services and failed to prove that the applicant actually received medical treatment. The WCJ also found a failure of proof that the lien claimant's services were reasonable and necessary.

Applicant told Dr. Sophia he had not received any treatment including acupuncture or chiropractic

Favours Defendant prevailed

This contradicted lien claimant's billing records and undermined the credibility of the lien claimant's evidence, leading to denial of the lien

From the decision · page 3Here, as discussed in the part of the WCJ's Report attached to this decision, the treatment records in petitioner's Exhibit One even if admissible because applicant's signature on them did not require authentication - are contradicted by the history applicant gave to Dr. Sophia. Petitioner billed for interpreting services allegedly provided at numerous acupuncture appointments, but Dr. Sophia reported that applicant told him he had not received any type of treatment. Again, the issue is not admissibility but the credibility or weight to be accorded the treatment/interpreting records signed by applicant. In relying upon Dr. Sophia's statements that applicant told the doctor he did not receive any treatment, the WCJ was within her fact-finding discretion to conclude that petitioner's evidence, when weighed against the evidence opposed to it, did not have more convincing force or the greater probability of truth. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.) We agree with the WCJ that petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving that its interpreting services were reasonably and necessarily incurred. Accordingly, we affirm the WCJ's decision.

Found applicant had sustained bilateral carpal tunnel injury; reported applicant told him he had not received any type of treatment including acupuncture, chiropractic, or physical therapy.

Applicant's statements to Dr. Sophia contradicted lien claimant's billing records, undermining the credibility of the lien claimant's evidence.

From the decision · page 3Here, as discussed in the part of the WCJ's Report attached to this decision, the treatment records in petitioner's Exhibit One even if admissible because applicant's signature on them did not require authentication - are contradicted by the history applicant gave to Dr. Sophia. Petitioner billed for interpreting services allegedly provided at numerous acupuncture appointments, but Dr. Sophia reported that applicant told him he had not received any type of treatment. Again, the issue is not admissibility but the credibility or weight to be accorded the treatment/interpreting records signed by applicant. In relying upon Dr. Sophia's statements that applicant told the doctor he did not receive any treatment, the WCJ was within her fact-finding discretion to conclude that petitioner's evidence, when weighed against the evidence opposed to it, did not have more convincing force or the greater probability of truth. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.) We agree with the WCJ that petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving that its interpreting services were reasonably and necessarily incurred. Accordingly, we affirm the WCJ's decision.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)

Labor Code section 4903.8(d) regarding lien claimant's declaration requirements

Documents signed by applicant were admissible under this statute despite authentication issues

Labor Code section 5708

Labor Code section 5708 allowing the Board to make inquiry by oral testimony and records to ascertain substantial rights

Documents in Exhibit One were admissible under this statute

Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders (2011) 76 Cal.Comp.Cases 228

Lien claimant has burden of proving services were actually provided and reasonably necessary

WCJ correctly framed the issue as whether lien claimant met burden of proof for reimbursement entitlement

From the decision · page 2Notwithstanding the WCJ's apparent exclusion of Exhibit One for lack of authentication of applicant's signature, we remain persuaded that the WCJ's disallowance of petitioner's lien should be affirmed. The WCJ correctly framed the issue as whether petitioner met its burden of proving all elements necessary to establish entitlement to reimbursement for its interpreting

Applicant's statements to Dr. Sophia that he had not received any treatment, contradicting lien claimant's billing records

From the decision · page 3Here, as discussed in the part of the WCJ's Report attached to this decision, the treatment records in petitioner's Exhibit One even if admissible because applicant's signature on them did not require authentication - are contradicted by the history applicant gave to Dr. Sophia. Petitioner billed for interpreting services allegedly provided at numerous acupuncture appointments, but Dr. Sophia reported that applicant told him he had not received any type of treatment. Again, the issue is not admissibility but the credibility or weight to be accorded the treatment/interpreting records signed by applicant. In relying upon Dr. Sophia's statements that applicant told the doctor he did not receive any treatment, the WCJ was within her fact-finding discretion to conclude that petitioner's evidence, when weighed against the evidence opposed to it, did not have more convincing force or the greater probability of truth. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.) We agree with the WCJ that petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving that its interpreting services were reasonably and necessarily incurred. Accordingly, we affirm the WCJ's decision.