What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; prior Joint Findings and Order of March 19, 2026, rescinded and substituted with a new order finding a contested claim existed at the time of the services rendered; all other issues deferred.
Petition for reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order of March 19, 2026, granted by the WCAB, rescinding the prior F&O and substituting a new F&O finding a contested claim existed at the time of the services rendered.
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 WCAB found that the cost petitioner met its burden to prove a contested claim existed at the time the services were rendered, contrary to the WCJ's prior finding, based on the evidence of disputed liability and contested issues including temporary disability indemnity.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ did not find that a contested claim existed as of May 30, 2013 or May 31, 2013, when the subpoenas were issued because the claim associated with ADJ8866704 was accepted with benefits paid on May 22, 2013. (Report, at p. 2.) As is demonstrated by the C&R and the WCJ's OACR, defendant only accepted liability for injury to the left thumb, even though applicant's hand was identified as a claimed body part. Notably, no medical records have ever been submitted. Defendant disputed liability for temporary disability indemnity benefits throughout the pendency of ADJ8866704, and as evidenced by the Application, temporary disability indemnity was a contested issue in ADJ8866704, and it was not resolved until the settlement of the case-in-chief. Accordingly, we disagree with the WCJ's finding as to whether a contested claim existed because the WCJ appears to construe the meaning of "for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim" very narrowly.