What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed and denied by WCAB panel after review of WCJ report
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 panel agreed with the WCJ that there was no bad faith by defendant in the delayed payment of the $60.00 balance, and thus denied the petition for reconsideration of costs and attorney fees.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No evidence of bad faith by defendant in delayed payment of $60.00 balance
Favours Defendant prevailed
The absence of bad faith meant no basis to award costs or attorney fees under WCAB Rule 10545(h).
From the decision · page 1While we agree with the WCJ that the Petition should be denied, we add the following: Cost Petitioner's Petition For Reconsideration should also be examined under WCAB Rule 10545(h) which first requires a finding of bad faith and if bad faith is found, then the WCJ determines the amount of the attorney's fees, costs and sanctions payable. Here, we agree with the WCJ that there was no bad faith based on the existing record and the fact that it took cost petitioner years to seek payment further confirms that there was no bad faith.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
WCAB Rule 10545(h)
Requires a finding of bad faith before attorney's fees, costs and sanctions can be awarded.
From the decision · page 1While we agree with the WCJ that the Petition should be denied, we add the following: Cost Petitioner's Petition For Reconsideration should also be examined under WCAB Rule 10545(h) which first requires a finding of bad faith and if bad faith is found, then the WCJ determines the amount of the attorney's fees, costs and sanctions payable. Here, we agree with the WCJ that there was no bad faith based on the existing record and the fact that it took cost petitioner years to seek payment further confirms that there was no bad faith.
8 Cal. Code of Reg. Sec. 9795.3
Regulation does not require automatic payment of market rate; payment must be at Superior Court fee schedule rate or established market rate.
8 Cal. Code of Reg. Sec. 9795.4
Regulation cited regarding billing objections and review process.
From the decision · page 4IV. DISCUSSION Petitioner herein (cost petitioner) herein contends that defendant's issuance of the EOR with citing a non-existent contract and an inapplicable fee schedule resulted in a failure to properly object to its billing under 8 Cal. Code of Reg. Sec. 9795.4. That much is acknowledged in the decision herein.
8 Cal. Code of Reg. Sec. 10421
Defines bad faith for purposes of awarding attorney's fees, costs and sanctions.
From the decision · page 4Petitioner avers that defendant "willfully" failed to comply with Regulation 9795.3 by paying less than the interpreter's asserted market rate, and that that conduct shows bad faith as described in Regulation 10421.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidence of bad faith by defendant in delayed payment of $60.00 balance
From the decision · page 1While we agree with the WCJ that the Petition should be denied, we add the following: Cost Petitioner's Petition For Reconsideration should also be examined under WCAB Rule 10545(h) which first requires a finding of bad faith and if bad faith is found, then the WCJ determines the amount of the attorney's fees, costs and sanctions payable. Here, we agree with the WCJ that there was no bad faith based on the existing record and the fact that it took cost petitioner years to seek payment further confirms that there was no bad faith.
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.