What the panel ordered
Findings and Order of the WCJ affirmed; no sanctions or attorney fees awarded.
Cost petitioner sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order regarding payment for interpreting services, sanctions, and attorney fees. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further study the issues and now issues its decision after reconsideration.
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 WCJ found, and the WCAB agreed, that there was reasonable ambiguity in the regulations regarding settlement interpreting costs and no binding authority, so defendant's position was not unwarranted or in bad faith. Thus, sanctions and attorney fees were not appropriate.
From the decision · page 6In his Report, the WCJ further stated that: Although defendants' arguments were ultimately found to be incorrect, there is reasonable ambiguity in the regulations with respect to both whether settlement interpreting costs are allowed at all, as well as the amount. There is no binding en banc or appellate opinion to make defendants' position on this issue unwarranted.... Section 10421(6)(7), which defines sanctionable "bad faith actions or tactics" under Labor Code section 5813 as including presenting a claim or a defense, or raising an issue or argument, that is not warranted under existing law. Also mitigating against a finding of sanctionable conduct are the reasonable ambiguities in the law, which are to be considered under Section 10421(6)(7)(A), and the impression that defendants have preserved and raised this issue in good faith for the purpose of adjudication, which is to be considered under Section 1042l(b)(7)(B).