ADJ17237792 · October 16, 2024

The WCAB found that the interpreting services are subject to AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1) and that the cost petitioner is entitled to payment for the translation services provided, but the amount of payment and bad faith denial issue must be reconsidered by the WCJ.

Cost petitioner provided Spanish language translation services for reading of the Compromise and Release on February 16, 2023.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This service is the basis for the cost petition and payment dispute.

From the decision · page 2On February 16, 2023, cost petitioner, "... translated settlement documents [Spanish language translation services for the reading of the Compromise and Release (C&R)] for applicant....." (MOH&SOE, April 2, 2024, 2:9-2:10.)

The interpreting services are not related to medical treatment but are necessary for applicant to understand the settlement documents.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The WCAB found that the correct rate for these services falls under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1), which governs interpretation for proceedings, not medical treatment.

From the decision · page 9proceedings that he is signing and/or participating in. We agree with petitioner that the correct rate for his services falls within AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1).

Defendant did not act in bad faith in denying the additional payment sought by cost petitioner, but the issue must be reconsidered by the WCJ.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The WCAB returned the matter to the WCJ to reconsider the bad faith issue after determining the correct payment rule.

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.