ADJ7660609 · December 20, 2021

Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the reasonable value of the medical-legal services it provided, as required by Labor Code 4621(a), and thus the Petition was denied.

From the decision · page 11The record in this case consists of Petitioner's assertion that 72.24% of its invoice amount should be used to determine reasonable value and Defendant's assertion that the amounts paid with the Objection Letters issued is the reasonable value. There is no actual analysis of the photo copy subpoena service industry market rate within a geographically relevant area for 2013 for each line item listed in the invoices. Petitioner provided insufficient information of the supply and demand for this service to project a market rate. No witness was produced by Petitioner to explain the reasonable value of each line item in the invoices. Therefore, Petitioner has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence the reasonable value of the services provided in regard to any of the subpoenas. In the absence of Petitioner proving by a preponderance of the evidence the reasonable value of its services as required by Colamonico its Petition for non-IBR Dispute Resolution must be denied. All other issues become moot.

Petitioner did not provide testimony or sufficient documentation to prove the reasonable value of the services provided.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure meant Petitioner did not meet its burden of proof under Labor Code 4621(a).

From the decision · page 4Petitioner did not file any documentation other than the request from Applicant's Attorney and Invoices 86411-1, 86411-12 and 86411-13. Petitioner did not provide any testimony to support these invoices. The WCJ's Findings of Fact cannot be based on speculation and assumptions. Therefore, Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence it actually provided the services identified in Invoices 86411-1, 86411-12 and 86411-13.

Petitioner failed to prove that second copies of records were requested by Applicant's Attorney, making those fees unnecessary.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The WCJ found these fees unreasonable and unnecessary, supporting denial of the Petition.

From the decision · page 13Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Applicant's Attorney actually requested second copies of records on any of the subpoenas. These fees are all unnecessary. Providing duplicate copies that were not requested unreasonably increases each invoice.

Labor Code 4620, 4621, 4622(f); Ashley Colamonico v Secure Transportation, 84 Cal. Comp. Cases 1059; 2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 111

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the reasonable value of medical-legal services provided, including that a contested claim existed, the services were necessary, and the expenses were reasonable at the time incurred.

The WCJ and WCAB applied these standards to determine that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for reasonable value of services.

From the decision · page 6The party holding the affirmative on an issue bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence. When a medical-legal service provider files a request for non-IBR dispute resolution it holds the affirmative on its right to compensation. The Court identified the evidentiary burden faced by medical-legal service providers that filed a Lien Claim in Ashley Colamonico v Secure Transportation, 84 Cal. Comp. Cases 1059; 2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 111. Colamonico is an en banc decision that serves as controlling precedent.

Petitioner did not provide testimony or sufficient documentation to support the reasonable value of the services provided, and invoices alone were insufficient.

From the decision · page 4Petitioner did not file any documentation other than the request from Applicant's Attorney and Invoices 86411-1, 86411-12 and 86411-13. Petitioner did not provide any testimony to support these invoices. The WCJ's Findings of Fact cannot be based on speculation and assumptions. Therefore, Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence it actually provided the services identified in Invoices 86411-1, 86411-12 and 86411-13.

Petitioner failed to prove that second copies of records were requested, making those fees unnecessary.

From the decision · page 13Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Applicant's Attorney actually requested second copies of records on any of the subpoenas. These fees are all unnecessary. Providing duplicate copies that were not requested unreasonably increases each invoice.