What the panel ordered
Reconsideration granted; April 26, 2018 Findings and Order rescinded; lien claimant DFS Interpreting's bills deemed satisfied due to failure to request second review and independent bill review; Meadowbrook Insurance Company not liable for further payment; lien claimant takes nothing further on lien.
Remittitur from the Third District Court of Appeal directing the WCAB to reconsider and issue a new decision consistent with the Court's November 21, 2019 decision.
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 Court held that the interpreter fee schedule was subject to Independent Bill Review (IBR) and the requirement to file a request for second review, and lien claimant's failure to do so was fatal, resulting in the bills being deemed satisfied and no further liability for Meadowbrook.
From the decision · page 1The following Opinion and Decision after Remittitur is issued pursuant to the remittitur filed on April 6, 2019 to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board), by the Third District Court of Appeal (Court), in which the Court certified that its decision of November 21, 2019 has become final.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimant DFS Interpreting failed to request a second review and independent bill review as required by Labor Code section 4603.2(e).
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure was fatal to lien claimant's recovery and resulted in the bills being deemed satisfied, barring further payment liability for Meadowbrook.
From the decision · page 4FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Lien claimant DFS Interpreting was required to comply with Administrative Director Rule 9792.5.5. 2. The bills of lien claimant DFS Interpreting in this case are deemed satisfied due to its failure to request a second review and independent bill review as required by Labor Code section 4603.2(e). 3. Meadowbrook is not liable for further payment of the bills of DFS Interpreting in this case.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4603.2(e)
Lien claimant's failure to request a second review and independent bill review as required by Labor Code section 4603.2(e) bars recovery on the lien.
Applied to bar lien claimant's recovery due to failure to comply with second review and IBR requirements.
From the decision · page 1The following Opinion and Decision after Remittitur is issued pursuant to the remittitur filed on April 6, 2019 to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board), by the Third District Court of Appeal (Court), in which the Court certified that its decision of November 21, 2019 has become final.
Administrative Director Rule 9792.5.5
Administrative Director Rule 9792.5.5 requires providers disputing payment amounts to request a second review within 90 days.
Applied to interpret the procedural requirements for lien claimant's payment dispute.
From the decision · page 2Administrative Director Rule 9792.5.5. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.8, § 9792.5.5) The WCJ found that the liens of DFS were not barred by their failure to file a request for second review. The Appeals Board affirmed the decision, reasoning that, because the interpreter fee schedule was not subject to Independent Bill Review (IBR), it was not subject to the second review requirement. As discussed in greater detail below, the Court determined that the interpreter fee schedule was, in fact, subject to IBR and the requirement that lien claimant file a request for second review.
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.