Law

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

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

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

Mileage Rate for Medical and Medical-Legal Travel Expenses Increases Effective January 1, 2025 REMINDER- Mileage Rate for Medical and Medical-Legal Travel Expenses Increases Effective January 1, 2025 Siegel, Moreno & Stettler APC wish to remind our clients that effective 1/1/25, there is a new mileage and travel reimbursement rate. The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) announced the increase of the mileage rate for medical and medical-legal travel expenses by 3 cents to 70.0 cents per mile effective January 1, 2025. This rate must be paid for travel on or after January 1, 2025, regardless of the date of injury. Labor Code Section 4600, in conjunction with Government Code Section 19820 and the California Department of Human Resources regulations, establishes the rate payable for mileage reimbursement for medical and medical-legal expenses and ties it to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The updated mileage form is available on the DWC website, https://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/I&A_mileageForm.pdf 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

Average weekly wage (AWW) Increase for 2025 Released for Workers Compensation Claims Per the State of California, the State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) rose nearly 3.8% in the year ending March 31, 2024, which will result in an increase in California workers’ compensation temporary total disability (TTD) and permanent total disability (PTD) rates for 2025 work injury claims and other workers’ compensation benefits that are tied to SAWW increases. Wage data from the US Department of Labor demonstrate the increase of 3.8% (rounded up) from $1,642.00 to $1,704.00. The TTD/PTD maximum rate will increase by an additional $61.14 to $1,680.29 per week for claims with injury dates on or after January 1, 2025. The minimum weekly TTD/PTD rates will increase by $9.17 to $252.03 per week for claims with 2025 injury dates. Other potential workers’ compensation benefits including life pension, PTD payments post January 1, 2023, death claim installment payments and TTD paid over two years post injury will also increase. Also beginning on January 1, 2025, other workers’ compensation benefits, including TTD paid two years or more after injury, life pension and PTD payments for injuries on or after January 1, 2003, and installment payments on death claims will be going up due to the SAWW increase. Underpayment of benefits results in penalties, so CWCI encourages claims administrators to review changes in benefit rates with legal counsel to assure that adjustments are appropriate and accurate. The State has provided a data table for reference, which shows the 12 months ending on March 31, 2023 and the 12 months ending on March 31. 2024, per the US department of Labor: https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/data_summary/DataSum.asp If you have questions on rates, changes to payments or the impact on any claim including increases in reserving, please reach out to any attorney at Siegel, Moreno & Stettler to learn more. 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

AB 2337 signed into law, electronic signatures allowed, subject to AD/WCAB requirements/restrictions At long last, the State legislature has put to rest an ongoing issue that in my humble opinion, should not be a complicated or controversial one. That is, allowing electronic signatures on most documents in the Workers’ Compensation arena. Most notably, settlement documents. During the COVID-19 state of emergency, multiple, temporary changes were made to allow Workers’ Compensation matters to proceed with “business as usual”, to the fullest extent possible. This included allowing electronic signatures on important documents, such as settlement documents, to comply with restrictions on in person meetings and social distance requirements. I immediately noticed a sizable decrease change in the time it would take to get documents finalized and submitted to the court as applicant’s no longer had to wait for documents to be mailed to them for review. Nor did they need to schedule an appointment with their attorney to physically come to the office to complete forms, which could be an issue if they were working, had transportation issues, or if their attorney had a busy calendar. In 2023, the en banc decision No. 9, addressing Case No. MISC. NO. 268 rescinded all remaining provisions or prior en banc orders regarding the pandemic due to the state of emergency being deemed as ended by Governor Newsom. Since that time, there has been a lack of uniformity with WCAB offices regarding signatures and filing of documents. Some judges still seemed to allow electronic signatures while some indicated the signature on certain documents had to be a wet signature. AB 2337, signed before the end of the current legislative session clarifies the definition of a “signature” to allow for electronic signatures. An electronic signature is defined as “an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the electronic record, where the electronic signature is attributable to a person per the requirements of Title 2.5 (commencing with Section 1633.1) of Part 2 of Division 3 of the Civil Code or Section 16.5 of the Government Code.” Labor Code 110.5 and 3206.5 have been created as a result of this bill. This is good news and finally moves Workers’ Compensation matters in line with many other areas of law that allow for many contracts to be finalized with an electronic signature. The changes go into effect on 1/1/25. However, I have seen in the past week or so a few judges permitting electronic signatures at the present time on two settlement documents I have submitted for their review. Read the full Bill here. 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

Major Lien Victory for Siegel, Moreno & Stettler: ! A Take Nothing on a hospital lien in an amount exceeding $522k Tim Rose of the Sacramento office has successfully defended a lien filed by John Muir Medical Center, successfully arguing at Trial that the lien claimant had failed to prove AOE/COE and that the applicant was an employee at the time the medical incident occurred or was performing duties on behalf of or for the benefit of the employer at the time of his incident. The Application for Adjudication was filed by the lien claimant after providing medical care for an individual who was treated for an intracranial hemorrhage, skull defect and other serious ailments. At the time of Trial, the lien claimant attempted to introduce new evidence not listed on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement through a Trial Brief with attachments. The evidence was successfully blocked from being introduced or considered at the time of Trial. The lien claimant has since withdrawn their lien and did not pursue Reconsideration. Read the full Findings and Order here. 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

A Major Win for Siegel, Moreno & Stettler! A significant victory in the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One FINDINGS FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE (APPLICANT) vs. ; (Permissibly self-insured, DEFENDANTS) Attorney for Defendants: Steven M. Siegel The claims by the Applicant alleged back in 1992, the employer arranged mammograms for all the employees. Applicant claimed to have had one of the mammograms and subsequently learned that she had damage to her breast implants. The case was denied and litigation involved the Applicant’s deposition as well as a number of hearings at the WCAB. The Applicant claimed a number of conspiracy theories including Judges, prior Attorneys, and the present Defense Counsel. Some of the theories included involvement with one of the Judge’s brother and the shooting in Las Vegas, references to Nazis and World War II, involvement of the CIA, and other novel ideas. The Writ was as a result of Defendant’s filing a Motion to Dismiss the Application and determine the Applicant to be a Vexatious Litigant pursuant to 8 CCR 10430(a). A Vexatious Litigant means: A party who, while acting in propria persona in proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, repeatedly relitigates, or attempts to relitigate, an issue of law or fact that has been finally determined against that party by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or by an appellate court; A party who, while acting in propria persona in proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings or other papers, repeatedly conducts or attempts to conduct unnecessary discovery, or repeatedly engages in other tactics that are in bad faith, are frivolous or are solely intended to cause harassment or unnecessary delay; or A party who has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction(s) or occurrence(s) that are the subject, in whole or in substantial part, of the party’s workers’ compensation case. Under subsection (b), a party can be declared a Vexatious Litigant by Petition of a party, upon the Motion of any Workers’ Compensation Judge or the Appeals Board, the Presiding Workers’ Compensation Judge of any District Office having venue or the Appeals Board. This was accomplished in this case, with the Applicant being declared a Vexatious Litigant. As a result of being declared a Vexatious Litigant, subsection (d) states that Presiding Workers’ Compensation Judge or Appeals Board may enter a “prefiling” Order, in other words an Order which prohibits the Vexatious Litigation from filing in propria any Application, Declaration of Readiness, or a Petition without first obtaining leave of the Presiding Workers’ Compensation Judge for the Appeals Board. Under subsection (e), request from said Vexatious Litigant “conditionally filed” pending review by the Presiding Judge (in this case Honorable Clifford Levy), or the Appeals Board could determine if subsection (a) has been violated. If said request does not violate subsection (a), then it will be deemed to have been “properly filed”. Presiding Judge or Appeals Board may consider “whether there has been a significant change in circumstances (such as new or newly discovered evidence or a change in law) among other factors that might materially affect an issue of fact or law that was previously finally determined against the vexatious litigant. CASE BACKGROUND The Applicant had been determined a “Vexatious Litigant” considered the “prefiling review” of the Applicant’s conditional filing to determine whether the request would be accepted for filing. The main issue was whether or not the Applicant filed her Petition for Reconsideration timely. The Defendants Petitioned the Court to Dismiss the Application on the basis that the Applicant was a Vexatious Litigant. The Order Dismissing the Application was dated April 6, 2023, and the 25 day limit to file the Petition fell on May 1, 2023. There was also an issue as to whether or not prefiling review was conditional as a result of the Board accepting the Petition. It was at best confusing to determine what the Applicant intended to file. She did the following: 1). A letter dated April 28, 2023, received by the Board on May 1, 2023, which stated “please process my Reconsideration for Change of Venue”, but there were no attachments; 2). A proof of service for a “Motion for Disqualification” showed a date of May 1, 2023, but there was no such document filed with the Board. (3) Petition for Reconsideration with proof of service by mail May 1, 2023 with the Petition stamped by the Board as received on May 3, 2023. Defendants and their Response to the Petition for Reconsideration claimed the Petition filed by the Applicant was not timely. Other issues were also raised but the Judge determined that the Petition was not timely. The Appeals Board accepted the Petition and found the following: The Petition, even though it was untimely to address the issues. Judge Levy held that the Petition for Reconsideration as claimed by Defendants was not timely. Final decision. WCAB APPEALS BOARD In the Appeals Board’s decision, they noted “material change in circumstances related to the dismissal of the Application for Adjudication of Claim. Of interest, is the Appeals Board never said what that was under the circumstances, nevertheless accepted the Petition for filing. The Board summarily dismissed the Petition as untimely and noted the Petition would have been denied on the merits per the Judge’s reports (Appeals Board considering the April 20, 2023, letter “conditional filing” that were then rejected for filing, noting it made no reference to the dismissed Order. Of interest, the Appeals Board noted some of the unfounded allegations. It really was unclear as to what the new and relevant facts were in this case even though the Petition was considered by the Appeals Board to be a material change in circumstances such that it was not deemed in violation of previous litigants prefiling Order. Defendants raised the issue of her requesting a

Understanding & Navigating the Implications of Senate Bill 1299 As the legal landscape of workers’ compensation in California continues to evolve, legal practitioners and insurance adjusters must stay informed about recent legislative developments that may impact their practice. Senate Bill 1299, recently passed in California, introduces significant changes regarding heat-related injuries in the workplace. In this article, we will explore the implications of SB 1299 for legal practitioners and insurance carriers, providing insights and guidance on how to navigate this new legislation effectively. Understanding Senate Bill 1299: Senate Bill 1299, which passed in May 2024, aims to create a presumption for heat-related injuries in the workplace. The bill now moves to the Assembly Insurance committee.  Under this legislation, if an employee working outdoors suffers a heat-related illness, it would be presumed to be a workplace injury, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the employer to rebut this presumption. This significant change has far-reaching implications for workers’ compensation defense in California, requiring legal practitioners and insurance adjusters to adapt their strategies accordingly. Implications for Legal Practitioners: For legal practitioners specializing in workers’ compensation defense, SB 1299 necessitates a thorough understanding of the new legal framework surrounding heat-related injuries. It is crucial to advise clients on the implications of this legislation and develop proactive defense strategies to mitigate potential liabilities. This may involve conducting comprehensive investigations, gathering relevant evidence, and effectively challenging presumptions of injury when appropriate. Implications for Insurance Examiners: Examiners tasked with administering workers’ compensation claims must also adapt to the changes introduced by SB 1299. It is essential to review and update claims handling procedures to ensure compliance with the new presumption for heat-related injuries. This may include enhancing safety protocols, providing additional training to employees, and collaborating closely with legal counsel to navigate complex claims effectively. Best Practices for Implementation: In light of SB 1299, legal practitioners and insurance adjusters should collaborate closely to develop best practices for implementing the new legislation. This may involve conducting regular reviews of claims files, staying informed about updates in caselaw and regulatory guidance, and fostering open communication with clients and stakeholders. By proactively addressing potential challenges and leveraging their collective expertise, legal practitioners and insurance adjusters can navigate the complexities of SB 1299 with confidence. Should Senate Bill 1299 become law, it would represent a significant shift in California’s workers’ compensation landscape, particularly concerning heat-related injuries in the workplace. Legal practitioners and insurance adjusters must educate themselves about the implications of this legislation and adapt their practices accordingly. By staying informed, collaborating effectively, and implementing best practices, they can effectively navigate the challenges posed by SB 1299 while upholding the rights of their clients and ensuring the integrity of the Workers’ Compensation system. 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