admin – S | M | S – Siegel, Moreno & Stettler, APC – Workers' Compensation Subrogation and Property Subrogation

Siegel, Moreno & Stettler Secures Take-Nothing Decision on $37k Chiropractic Lien

Siegel, Moreno & Stettler Secures Take-Nothing Decision on $37k Chiropractic Lien Dany Oliva v. Lamppost Pizza; Employers Insurance Group, ADJ21361466 On September 8, 2026, Siegel, Moreno & Stettler, through attorney Julia Hielbron, secured a take-nothing decision against the $36,929.40 lien asserted by First Choice Higashi Chiropractic Clinic Inc. The lien claimant did not file a petition for reconsideration by the statutory deadline, and the decision became final on October 5, 2026. Case Background The lien arose from self-procured primary treating physician services, including chiropractic treatment, acupuncture, and shockwave therapy, provided both before and after the underlying claim was denied. Injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, commonly referred to as AOE/COE, remained disputed. The defense raised AOE/COE and licensing issues, including whether the individual acupuncturist possessed the required site-specific wall license. The defense trial brief focused on the provider’s compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements governing chiropractic and professional corporations. Licensing Defect Bars the Lien The threshold issue was whether the lien was barred because the provider failed to comply with applicable business and professional licensing requirements. Anaheim Workers’ Compensation Judge Josephine Broussard concluded that the lien was barred as a matter of law because First Choice Higashi Chiropractic Clinic Inc. provided treatment without first obtaining a Certificate of Registration from the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The lien claimant presented several documents in response, including corporate registration records filed with the California Secretary of State, a fictitious business name statement, individual chiropractic and acupuncture licenses, and a city business license. Those documents, however, did not establish that the corporation had satisfied the separate registration requirements of the applicable professional licensing board. The decision reinforces that strict compliance with professional licensing requirements is a prerequisite to payment. The same licensing defect could therefore bar recovery even if the underlying workers’ compensation claim had been accepted. Additional Acupuncture Licensing Issue The WCJ also found that the acupuncturist lacked the required wall license at the facility where services were performed. That defect independently barred the acupuncture charges. However, because the corporation’s registration failure barred all charges, the additional acupuncture licensing issue did not change the ultimate result. Broader Significance This decision provides defendants with a strong basis to challenge other liens asserted by First Choice Higashi Chiropractic Clinic Inc.. Siegel, Moreno & Stettler intends to assert the decision’s preclusive effect, including res judicata where applicable, in opposition to the lien claimant’s efforts to proceed with other liens or future lien trials. The result also offers a broader reminder to defendants and claims administrators: corporate and professional licensing compliance should be evaluated early when investigating and defending medical-provider liens. A provider’s possession of an ordinary business license or individual professional licenses does not necessarily establish that the provider entity itself is properly registered and legally entitled to payment. Siegel, Moreno & Stettler is here to help. Contact us to learn more. Search for: Search Categories COVID-19 Depositions Firm Announcements Firm Notifications Giving Back Law New Attorneys New Location Property Subrogation Subrogation Workers' Compenstation Archives Archives Select Month October 2026 August 2026 March 2026 January 2026 July 2025 May 2025 March 2025 January 2025 November 2024 October 2024 July 2024 June 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 August 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 November 2021 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 August 2017 January 202 [contact-form-7 id=”f693a96″ title=”Blog Subscribe”] Edit Template

Siegel, Moreno & Stettler Secures Take-Nothing Decision on $37k Chiropractic Lien Read More »

Congratulations, Mr. Penfield

Firm Announcements / admin

Congratulations, Mr. Penfield Siegel, Moreno & Stettler is pleased to announce the promotion of Weston F. Penfield from Associate to Junior Partner. With extensive experience in California workers’ compensation defense, proven litigation skills, and a strong commitment to our clients, Weston has made significant contributions to the firm and is well positioned for continued success in his new role. We extend our heartfelt congratulations to Weston! Weston has been a member of the State Bar of California since 2012 and has extensive experience litigating workers’ compensation matters throughout California. He earned his J.D. from California Western School of Law and his B.A. in History, cum laude, from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Search for: Search Categories COVID-19 Depositions Firm Announcements Firm Notifications Giving Back Law New Attorneys New Location Property Subrogation Subrogation Workers’ Compenstation Archives ArchivesSelect MonthOctober 2026August 2026March 2026January 2026July 2025May 2025March 2025January 2025November 2024October 2024July 2024June 2024January 2024December 2023November 2023August 2023May 2023April 2023March 2023February 2023May 2022March 2022February 2022January 2022November 2021October 2020September 2020August 2020June 2020May 2020April 2020March 2020January 2020November 2019October 2019September 2019March 2019February 2019January 2019August 2017January 202 [contact-form-7 id=”f693a96″ title=”Blog Subscribe”] Edit Template

Congratulations, Mr. Penfield Read More »

Siegel, Moreno & Stettler Secures $100k+ Recovery in Contribution Dispute

Firm Announcements / admin

Siegel, Moreno & Stettler Secures $100k+ Recovery in Contribution Dispute Sara Kuperberg, Esq., recently secured a $102,268.64 recovery on behalf of Insurance Company of the West (ICW) in a contested cumulative trauma contribution proceeding. The award also requires the co-defendant to reimburse 46% of ongoing and future costs associated with the claim. Case Background The applicant initially alleged a specific injury occurring on July 14, 2020, involving the neck, shoulders, wrists, upper extremities, and arms while working as a mechanic. Through deposition testimony and the medical-legal process, defense counsel developed evidence supporting a cumulative trauma injury rather than a single specific injury. The Qualified Medical Evaluator also addressed the contribution of the applicant’s prior employment during the final year of injurious exposure. To avoid delaying the applicant’s benefits while the prior employment period was being verified, the applicant’s claim was resolved before the prior employer and its carrier were joined. Within one year of the settlement, ICW filed petitions for joinder and contribution, asserting that the prior employer was responsible for 46% of the claim. Contribution Dispute The co-defendant raised several defenses. Among other arguments, it contended that joinder after approval of the Compromise and Release violated its due process rights, that the settlement did not expressly reserve ICW’s right to seek contribution, and that the cumulative trauma period was vague and should not extend back one year from the applicant’s last day of physical work. When the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the contribution dispute proceeded to arbitration on August 26, 2026. The parties submitted documentary evidence and written briefs for decision. Outcome On September 30, 2026, the arbitrator issued Findings and Award in ICW’s favor. ICW was awarded $102,268.64 in reimbursement, plus 46% of all ongoing and future costs. The arbitrator emphasized the undisputed evidence that the applicant worked for both employers during the relevant period and performed the same job duties for each. The arbitrator also rejected the co-defendant’s due process argument, concluding that the prompt delivery of benefits to the applicant should not be delayed while an unwilling prior employer’s employment information is being confirmed. The decision recognized the importance of fulfilling statutory obligations to the injured worker while preserving the parties’ ability to resolve contribution afterward. Key Takeaways Cumulative trauma claims require careful development of the medical and employment history, particularly during the final year of injurious exposure. Resolving an applicant’s claim before a contribution dispute is finalized does not necessarily eliminate the right to pursue reimbursement from another responsible party. Timely petitions for joinder and contribution, supported by a clear evidentiary record, can preserve substantial recovery rights. Where liability is disputed, focused discovery, medical-legal development, and a well-supported arbitration brief can be decisive. This result reflects Sara’s strategic handling of a complex contribution dispute and her commitment to protecting the client’s reimbursement rights. Congratulations to Sara on an excellent outcome. If you need guidance regarding cumulative trauma, joinder, contribution, or reimbursement issues, Siegel, Moreno & Stettler is here to help. Contact us to learn more. Search for: Search Categories COVID-19 Depositions Firm Announcements Firm Notifications Giving Back Law New Attorneys New Location Property Subrogation Subrogation Workers' Compenstation Archives Archives Select Month October 2026 August 2026 March 2026 January 2026 July 2025 May 2025 March 2025 January 2025 November 2024 October 2024 July 2024 June 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 August 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 November 2021 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 August 2017 January 202 [contact-form-7 id=”f693a96″ title=”Blog Subscribe”] Edit Template

Siegel, Moreno & Stettler Secures $100k+ Recovery in Contribution Dispute Read More »

Congratulations, Mr. Konrad

Firm Announcements / admin

Congratulations, Mr. Konrad Siegel, Moreno & Stettler is pleased to welcome Jim Konrad as the newest attorney at Siegel, Moreno & Stettler. Mr. Konrad brings experience in litigation, negotiation, legal research, contract analysis, and risk management. His practical approach to problem-solving and commitment to client service make him a great addition to our Workers’ Compensation Defense team. Mr. Konrad received his Juris Doctor from the University of Maryland School of Law and completed his undergraduate studies in Political Science at California State University, East Bay. We are excited to welcome him to the SMS team and look forward to his contributions to our clients and firm. Search for: Search Archives Archives Select Month September 2026 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 August 2017 Subscribe To Our Blog First Name Last Name Email * Edit Template

Congratulations, Mr. Konrad Read More »

Congratulations, Ms. Oraha

Firm Announcements / admin

Congratulations, Ms. Oraha Siegel, Moreno & Stettler is pleased to welcome Rivai Oraha as an Associate Attorney. Ms. Oraha brings hands-on experience supporting California workers’ compensation defense matters, including WCAB proceedings, case analysis, hearing preparation, client reporting, and litigation documentation. Her background includes reviewing medical and legal issues, preparing pleadings and settlement documents, coordinating with claims professionals and medical providers, and supporting the efficient resolution of complex workers’ compensation claims. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Oraha gained valuable workers’ compensation defense experience with several California defense firms, where she developed a practical, client-focused approach to litigation support and case management. We are excited to have Rivai join the firm and look forward to the dedication, professionalism, and perspective she brings to our clients and team. Ms. Oraha earned her J.D. from California Western School of Law and holds a B.S. in Criminal Justice/Political Science from San Diego State University. Search for: Search Archives ArchivesSelect MonthSeptember 2026April 2020March 2020January 2020November 2019October 2019September 2019March 2019February 2019January 2019August 2017 Subscribe To Our Blog First Name Last Name Email * Edit Template

Congratulations, Ms. Oraha Read More »

Congratulations, Ms. Heilbron

Firm Announcements / admin

Congratulations, Ms. Heilbron Siegel, Moreno & Stettler is pleased to welcome Julia Heilbron as an Associate Attorney. Ms. Heilbron brings extensive experience in workers’ compensation defense litigation, with a particular focus on lien defense, Special Investigations Unit (SIU) and Special Adjudication Unit (SAU) matters, and the identification and prosecution of fraud-related issues in both case-in-chief and lien litigation. Her background includes representing employers, carriers, and third-party administrators in complex workers’ compensation matters throughout California. We are excited to have Julia join the firm and look forward to the knowledge, experience, and dedication she brings to our clients and team. Robert holds a J.D. from the University of San Diego, an M.S. from the University of Oregon, and a B.P.E. from the University of Alberta. Search for: Search Archives Archives Select Month September 2026 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 August 2017 Subscribe To Our Blog First Name Last Name Email * Edit Template

Congratulations, Ms. Heilbron Read More »

Don’t like Interpreter market rates? Blame the defendants!

Law / admin

Don’t like Interpreter market rates? Blame the defendants! An analysis of interpreter market rates and an update on my current discovery and litigation with liens and Cost Petitions About two years ago, one of my favorite clients asked me to handle a Cost Petition over an alleged underpayment to an interpreter who had assisted at a hearing about two years prior. I accepted, largely as a learning experience. Up until that point, I had handled hundreds of interpreter liens through the traditional lien process, from informal negotiations through trial decisions, and had even successfully disposed of a prior Cost Petition by identifying a accounting mistake on the part of the interpreting agency. I was pretty aggressive in my response to the WCAB, which did the trick. I guess that was enough for my client to warrant a return to another Cost Petition with the same opposing counsel. Up to that point, I had only handled a few Labor Code §5811 Cost Petitions over the years and all were negotiation-based. Meaning, the client just wanted them to go away and were willing to pay for attorney’s fees to bring an end to the issue. From the start of that first Cost Petition with this client, I realized that they would rapidly become more popular (and they have), for at least two reasons. First, there is a conflict in the law that allows for multiple avenues to pursue collection of an interpreter bill. Even the most seasoned attorneys who specialize in only filing Cost Petitions (yes, there are a few) seem to confuse what is subject to IBR, non-IBR, a lien, or a Cost Petition under Labor Code §5811. Defense attorneys confuse them even more. As a side note, Labor Code §5811, WCAB Rule §10545 and a few other CCR provisions all have arguable overlaps pertaining to medical, medical-legal and “other” situations in which interpreters may render assistance. Second, is the claim of a “market rate” in general. Raise your hand if you have NOT seen an interpreter bill for anywhere between roughly $200-$400 for a minimum of two hours that is accompanied by a long, generic list of “other” comparable charges. No specifics, no case information. Nothing more than some random dates, a billed amount, and canned information as to what type of service the interpreter allegedly provided as their service. I see no hands raised. Boom! That is the all-powerful Kunz analysis that interpreters and their counsel attempt to roll up and smack the defendant over the head with as proof of their “market rate”. And time and time again, a defense attorney will glance at it and decide to compromise. Maybe that same attorney convinced the interpreting agency to knock a few bucks off per date of service. Maybe they threaten a threshold issue. Maybe the appearances get continued and the issue remains unsolved for a while. Yet, time and time again, the defendant coughs up big money for interpreters. Rinse and repeat. And they are not solely to blame. Claims examiners who have suffered through a long and drawn-out claim just want some peace and quiet and for those old dog claims to go the way of the ghost. No one likes dealing with those zombie files. And so, they offer authority and the matter is resolved. And don’t get me started on Judges. I have learned over the last year and a half that they too frequently don’t understand what goes into a Kunz analysis and what is required. They seem to dislike liens and Cost Petions even more than the defense side does, as lien conferences and hearings clog their already busy calendar. “Why aren’t both sides negotiating harder?” “Can’t your client come up with more money?” Again, raise your hand if you have NOT heard the same thing from a Judge on a case you have handled. Anyone? Anyone? I have gone to Trial on four such Cost Petitions over the last year or so, with some positive results. Of those, two have resolved with a lower payment obligation than what was demanded. Two resulted in no reimbursement due for attorney fees. All have slapped down overly broad discovery demands. I have negotiated three more. I have two that are pending being set for Trial at an upcoming appearance, with maybe six more in some other stage. In addition, I have two pending lien Trials for a Cost Petition and another for a lien filing where the WCAB has combined my request for discovery with the billing and demand for money. However, most of the work put into these cases has been defensive in nature, as I have jumped on the case after an appearance has already occurred, or well after a Cost Petition and demand for documentation has long been provided. Or, after a lien was filed for an interpreter and there either was a hearing pending, or one that had already occurred. Most of the work has been to clean up any issues and position the case for Trial. It wasn’t until fairly recently that we have finally been able to play some offense and aggressively demand discovery of our own. And what is the discovery? It stems from what I assume would be basic questions we should really know the answers to, if we are going to pay for a service. Such as, how is that market rate determined? What goes into it? What analysis goes into the Kunz paperwork the interpreters are presenting? What is the background of those other dates of service? I have found that the answers are hard to come by. Not just because interpreting agencies don’t want to provide me with basic information. That is to be expected. It seems that they can’t provide a substantive response. They just continue to use terms like “industry standard”, “trade secrets” and “Kunz analysis”. I recently had a lien claimant tell me with a straight face that knowing how the market rate is determined by her client and what

Don’t like Interpreter market rates? Blame the defendants! Read More »

Siegel, Moreno & Stettler Prevails: Take Nothing at Trial on Cost Petition for Interpreting Services

Law / admin

Siegel, Moreno & Stettler Prevails: Take Nothing at Trial on Cost Petition for Interpreting Services Timothy Rose, Esq. partner, and manager of our Northern California offices recently secured a ‘take nothing’ result at trial in Van Nuys WCAB, successfully defending against a demand for production of documents and a cost petition for unpaid interpreting services under Labor Code §5811. Case Background In January 2025, the defendant received an invoice for an unpaid interpreting service, a cost petition, and a notice to produce documents from a well-known cost petitioner attorney. This attorney is known for filing similar requests statewide and subsequently filed a motion to compel production of documents. Defense counsel responded with general objections to the petition for costs, the notice to produce, and the motion to compel, also filing for a protective order due to privilege and relevance concerns. A detailed request for production of documents was issued to the cost petitioner, but was ignored. The defendant ultimately paid the underlying invoice, clarifying that the original invoice had not been received until the packet arrived, and that there was insufficient evidence of prior billing. Litigation Strategy Despite payment, the cost petitioner pressed forward, demanding discovery, thousands of dollars in costs, and adverse presumptions for alleged unreasonable delay. At trial, his demand totaled $6,000 in fees. Defense counsel argued that the payment rendered the issue moot, that the requested discovery was irrelevant or privileged, and that there was no unreasonable delay or bad faith. The defense also challenged the cost petitioner’s failure to properly issue a 60-day demand before filing the petition and offered a nominal sum to resolve attorney fees, which was rejected. Outcome The court sided with the defendant on all issues, issuing a ‘take nothing’ Findings and Award. The judge found that the cost petitioner failed to meet and confer, improperly shifted the burden of proving bad faith, and relied on boilerplate filings insufficient to support his claims. Take Aways This is a great example of why it is important to properly respond to Notices to Produce and Petitions of any kind and to argue that boilerplate documents are often insufficient to properly address discovery issues. Additionally, it’s critical to make sure that the defendant is proactive in attempting to timely meet, confer, and resolve a dispute, if warranted. If you need guidance navigating these types of issues, we are always hereto help. Search for: Search Archives Archives Select Month September 2026 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 August 2017 Subscribe To Our Blog First Name Last Name Email * Edit Template

Siegel, Moreno & Stettler Prevails: Take Nothing at Trial on Cost Petition for Interpreting Services Read More »

Are We Coming or Going? A Fresh Look at the Going-and-Coming Rule in Light of Zenith Ins. v. WCAB (Hernandez 2025)

Law / admin

Are We Coming or Going? A Fresh Look at the Going-and-Coming Rule in Light of Zenith Ins. v. WCAB (Hernandez 2025) The going-and-coming rule has long been a cornerstone of California workers’ compensation law, generally excluding injuries sustained during an employee’s commute from coverage. However, a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal—Zenith Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Hernandez)(2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1164—has brought new clarity and imposed tighter limitations on the rule’s exceptions. What Happened? In this case, the 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that had awarded benefits to a farmworker injured during a vanpool commute. The employee, Hernandez, was involved in a car crash while returning home in a van arranged by a coworker—not the employer. He had been commuting about 60 miles to work and did not possess a driver’s license. The WCAB had found that the special risk and dual-purpose exceptions to the going-and-coming rule applied, making the accident compensable. Appeals Court Decision: NO WAY – Not Compensable Generally speaking, an injury that occurs while commuting to work is compensable. Although there are exceptions, the judge significantly narrowed their application in this case: Special Risk Exception: This exception applies only if the injury occurs just outside the employer’s location and arises from a work-related risk beyond what the general public faces. In this case, the crash occurred far from the workplace and did not involve an employer-controlled hazard. The employee’s lack of a license, the legality of the van, and the long commute did not constitute a ‘special risk’ tied to employment. Dual-Purpose Exception: This exception applies when the commute also serves an intentional work function—such as making a sales call or picking up supplies before heading home. The Court found no evidence that Hernandez was performing any work-related duties during the trip. Practical Takeaways for Claims Handling The Special Risk Exception has become narrower than ever. For a commuting injury to be covered, the risk must be unusual, directly related to the employee’s work, and occur at or near the workplace. A long commute—say, 60 miles—does not meet the threshold on its own. Similarly, the Dual-Purpose Exception is difficult to establish unless there is clear work being performed during the commute. A mere benefit to the employer, such as punctuality, or casual oversight (like occasional calls) does not meet the standard. The burden of proof lies squarely on the employee’s side. Defense teams should push for strong evidence, such as employer-arranged transportation, clear documentation of work performed during the commute, or instructions from a supervisor given in the vehicle. Ultimately, evidence matters. Employers should maintain organized employment agreements, transportation policies, and ride-sharing waivers. Witness statements can also be crucial. It’s important to establish in writing that commuting is the employee’s responsibility, helping to avoid unnecessary liability in the event of a claim. Final Word For insurance carriers, TPAs, and defense attorneys, this decision is a significant win. It provides strong authority to argue that normal, employee-arranged commuting is not compensable. Treat ride-shares and carpooling as personal travel unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. When in doubt, ensure you document everything. If you need guidance navigating these complex exceptions or want to ensure your policies are airtight, we’re alwayshereto help. Search for: Search Archives Archives Select Month September 2026 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 August 2017 Subscribe To Our Blog First Name Last Name Email * Edit Template

Are We Coming or Going? A Fresh Look at the Going-and-Coming Rule in Light of Zenith Ins. v. WCAB (Hernandez 2025) Read More »

Congratulations, Mr. Baker

Firm Announcements / admin

Congratulations, Mr. Baker Siegel, Moreno & Stettler is delighted to announce the promotion of Robert D. Baker to Managing Attorney of the Subrogation Team. With his extensive background in subrogation and workers’ compensation, combined with his proven leadership skills and years of experience, Robert is poised to drive our team to new heights. We extend our heartfelt congratulations to Robert! Robert holds a J.D. from the University of San Diego, an M.S. from the University of Oregon, and a B.P.E. from the University of Alberta Search for: Search Archives Archives Select Month September 2026 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 August 2017 Subscribe To Our Blog First Name Last Name Email * Edit Template

Congratulations, Mr. Baker Read More »