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.
From the decision · page 9§ 9795.3(b)(2) applies in this matter and find that cost petitioner is entitled to the greater of market rate or county superior court rate under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1). In this matter, we find that translating a C&R is most similar to appearing at an appeals board hearing which falls under AD Rule 9795.3(b)(1). Interpreter fees shall be billed and paid at the greater of the following (i) at the rate for one-half day or one full day as set forth in the Superior Court fee schedule for interpreters in the county where the service was provided, or (ii) at the
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant required a certified interpreter to understand the Compromise and Release settlement document.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This ensured the applicant's due process rights were protected and justified payment for interpreter services.
From the decision · page 6With respect to cost petitioner, we find it instructive to first highlight some of the legal principles that are relevant to our review of this matter. Workers' compensation proceedings are conducted in English, and with respect to non-English speaking individuals, their due process rights may be violated if the information is not presented in a language they understand. Specifically, where a non-English speaking injured worker must give testimony or appear at an English only proceeding such as an Appeals Board hearing, the worker must be able to understand the information provided and the questions asked in order to meaningfully appear at the proceedings.