What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed and denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board after review of the 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 Board found no evidence of bad faith by the defendant in contesting or delaying payment of medical-legal charges, thus denying sanctions and costs.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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.
Defendant did not timely make payments or object to billings but there was no evidence of bad faith, only untimely objection and payment.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without evidence of bad faith, sanctions and costs under Labor Code section 5813 cannot be imposed; penalties and interest under Labor Code section 4622 were imposed instead.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10451.1, now 10786 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020)
WCAB Rule 10786(i)(1) regarding bad faith actions or tactics and imposition of attorney's fees and costs.
The Board applied this rule to determine that bad faith must be shown to impose sanctions and costs.
From the decision · page 1WCAB Rule 10786(i)(1) provides that, "[i]f the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board determines that, as a result of bad faith actions or tactics, a defendant failed to comply with the requirements, timelines and procedures set forth in Labor Code sections 4622, 4603.3 and 4603.6 and the related Rules of the Administrative Director, the defendant shall be liable for the medical- legal provider's reasonable attorney's fees and costs and for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813 and rule 10421." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10451.1, now § 10786 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020), emphasis added.) Here, the WCJ's Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration correctly observes that the award of any costs and sanctions arising out of a parties' actions or tactics would necessarily be premised on a determination by the WCJ that those actions were taken in bad faith. (Report, at p. 3.)
Labor Code, 5813(a)
Labor Code section 5813 regarding sanctions for bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or intended to cause delay.
The Board applied this statute to assess the imposition of costs and sanctions based on bad faith.
From the decision · page 1Labor Code section 5813 further provides that "[t]he workers' compensation referee or appeals board may order a party, the party's attorney, or both, to pay any reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and costs, incurred by another party as a result of bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Lab. Code, § 5813(a),
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Lack of evidence of bad faith in defendant's actions regarding medical-legal charges and payments.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ has explained that the record does not support the imposition of attorney fees or costs, based on a lack of evidence of actions taken in bad faith. (Report, at pp. 3-4.) Following our review of the record occasioned by the Petition for Reconsideration, we discern neither an abuse of discretion, nor good cause to disturb the WCJ's findings.
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.