What the panel ordered
Petitions for Reconsideration denied.
Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Defendant and Cost Petitioner after Findings and Award decision; petitions reviewed and denied by WCAB panel.
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 petitions for reconsideration were denied because the parties failed to show the WCJ acted without or in excess of powers or that the evidence did not justify the findings of fact. New arguments not raised at trial were rejected, and excluded evidence was found not material to bad faith determination.
From the decision · page 4Defendant alleges the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers and the evidence does not justify the findings of fact. Defendant based this on the belief that the undersigned did not review Defendant's trial brief and that the decision was inconsistent with applicable law. The cost petitioner does not specify on which basis it has filed the Petition for Reconsideration, but one could infer that they are alleging the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers when the undersigned excluded proffered exhibits. Cost Petitioner alleges the excluded exhibits were material to the determination of bad faith and that vacating the decision and submission is necessary to allow new evidence that was not available at the time of trial. Both parties failed to state facts that would support the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers or that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petitions for reconsideration failed to show the WCJ acted without or in excess of powers or that the evidence did not justify findings of fact.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported denial of the petitions for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4Defendant alleges the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers and the evidence does not justify the findings of fact. Defendant based this on the belief that the undersigned did not review Defendant's trial brief and that the decision was inconsistent with applicable law. The cost petitioner does not specify on which basis it has filed the Petition for Reconsideration, but one could infer that they are alleging the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers when the undersigned excluded proffered exhibits. Cost Petitioner alleges the excluded exhibits were material to the determination of bad faith and that vacating the decision and submission is necessary to allow new evidence that was not available at the time of trial. Both parties failed to state facts that would support the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers or that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact.
New arguments not raised at trial were rejected on reconsideration.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported denial of the petitions for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 6Defendant alleges that the 8 CCR 9795.3(b)(1) is inapplicable. (Defendant Petition for Reconsideration, at page 3-4, lines 26-28, 1-23). This is a new argument that was not raised at the time of trial. The issues were listed by the parties specifically asking whether additional payments were warranted per 8 CCR 9795.3(b)(1). Defendant's post-trial brief also failed to address this issue that is now being raised. Since this issue was not raised at the trial level, it should not be considered for reconsideration. (See Cuevas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 479 (writ den.); L.A. Unif. School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 1220 (writ den.).)
Excluded exhibits 109-115 were found not material to bad faith determination and were properly excluded.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported denial of the petitions for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 6Cost Petitioner alleges that the Court should have taken in Exhibits 109-115, which it states were material to establishing that defendant engaged in bad faith and frivolous tactics. (Cost Petitioner Petition for Reconsideration, at page 1, lines 15-22). The Court sustained Defendant's objections in this instance. Defendant objected to the admission of the abovementioned exhibits on the basis of relevance and foundation because the EORs represented payments that were made
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Code of Regulations
8 CCR 9795.3(b)(1)
Applied to determine interpreter fee payment rate and to reject new arguments not raised at trial.
From the decision · page 6Defendant alleges that the 8 CCR 9795.3(b)(1) is inapplicable. (Defendant Petition for Reconsideration, at page 3-4, lines 26-28, 1-23). This is a new argument that was not raised at the time of trial. The issues were listed by the parties specifically asking whether additional payments were warranted per 8 CCR 9795.3(b)(1). Defendant's post-trial brief also failed to address this issue that is now being raised. Since this issue was not raised at the trial level, it should not be considered for reconsideration. (See Cuevas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 479 (writ den.); L.A. Unif. School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 1220 (writ den.).)
Case Law
Cuevas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005)
New arguments not raised at trial should not be considered on reconsideration.
From the decision · page 6Defendant alleges that the 8 CCR 9795.3(b)(1) is inapplicable. (Defendant Petition for Reconsideration, at page 3-4, lines 26-28, 1-23). This is a new argument that was not raised at the time of trial. The issues were listed by the parties specifically asking whether additional payments were warranted per 8 CCR 9795.3(b)(1). Defendant's post-trial brief also failed to address this issue that is now being raised. Since this issue was not raised at the trial level, it should not be considered for reconsideration. (See Cuevas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 479 (writ den.); L.A. Unif. School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 1220 (writ den.).)
Case Law
L.A. Unif. School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001)
New arguments not raised at trial should not be considered on reconsideration.
From the decision · page 6Defendant alleges that the 8 CCR 9795.3(b)(1) is inapplicable. (Defendant Petition for Reconsideration, at page 3-4, lines 26-28, 1-23). This is a new argument that was not raised at the time of trial. The issues were listed by the parties specifically asking whether additional payments were warranted per 8 CCR 9795.3(b)(1). Defendant's post-trial brief also failed to address this issue that is now being raised. Since this issue was not raised at the trial level, it should not be considered for reconsideration. (See Cuevas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 479 (writ den.); L.A. Unif. School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 1220 (writ den.).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Exclusion of exhibits 109-115 due to relevance and foundation objections; evidence not helpful to bad faith determination.
From the decision · page 6Cost Petitioner alleges that the Court should have taken in Exhibits 109-115, which it states were material to establishing that defendant engaged in bad faith and frivolous tactics. (Cost Petitioner Petition for Reconsideration, at page 1, lines 15-22). The Court sustained Defendant's objections in this instance. Defendant objected to the admission of the abovementioned exhibits on the basis of relevance and foundation because the EORs represented payments that were made
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.