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 facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimant Tower Imaging DBA Tower Copy submitted 15 copy service invoices representing 73.7% of the billed amount based on Market Rate analysis.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This formed the basis of the WCJ's initial award, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund challenged the reasonableness, necessity, and actual incurrence of the lien claimant's services and argued for use of the Fee Schedule instead of Market Rate analysis.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This challenge led to the petition for reconsideration and eventual settlement.
From the decision · page 1Petitioner, State Compensation Insurance Fund contends in its petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in allowing payment for these services asserting that lien claimant failed to prove the services were reasonable, necessary, and actually incurred. Petitioner further alleges that the WCJ should have utilized the Fee Schedule as set forth in California Code of Regulations Section 9983 instead of the Market Rate Analysis to determine the reasonable value of lien claimant's services.