CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ1781281 (MON 0350482) ADJ4191242 (MON 0350483)
Regular
Aug 11, 2011

ANGEL ACOSTA vs. GUILDCRAFT FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AMERICAN CASUALTY

This case involves a lien claimant seeking payment for interpreting services provided to an injured worker. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to disallow the lien claimant's claim for $25,573.00. The Board found that the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that the interpreting services were reasonably necessary, that the interpreters were qualified, and that the fees were reasonable. Crucially, no evidence was presented demonstrating a need for an interpreter for effective doctor-patient communication or that the interpreters were certified as required by law.

Lien claimantInterpreting servicesQualified interpreterBurden of proofReasonableness of feesIndustrial injuryMedical treatmentLabor Code section 4600(f)Compensable servicesWorkers' compensation administrative law judge
References
Case No. ADJ3564079 (SDO 0254307)
Regular
Sep 07, 2011

RAUL PEREZ vs. USA WASTE SERVICES, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Langlink Interpreters, Inc. (LC) regarding their $\$5,175$ lien for interpreter services. The original judge disallowed the lien, citing lack of proof of necessity, availability of bilingual staff, and pre-authorization. The Board rescinded the original order, returning the case for further proceedings, and established that employers must provide reasonably required interpreter services under Labor Code section 4600. LC now bears the burden to prove services were reasonably required, provided, qualified, and reasonably priced, as per the *Guitron* decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardlien claimantinterpreter servicesmedical treatmentLabor Code section 4600burden of proofreasonably requiredstipulated Awardpermanent disabilityindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ163338
Significant
Mar 17, 2011

Jose Guitron, Applicant vs. Santa Fe Extruders, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board held that under Labor Code section 4600, an employer is required to provide reasonably necessary interpreter services during medical treatment for an injured worker who cannot communicate effectively in English, and clarified the burden of proof for interpreter lien claimants.

En Banc DecisionInterpreter ServicesMedical TreatmentReasonably RequiredBurden of ProofQualified InterpreterLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4600Medical-Legal ExpensesCertified Interpreter
References
Case No. ADJ779198 (SJO 0267719)
Regular
Nov 19, 2010

EVELIN GARCIA vs. SERVICE PERFORMANCE CORPORATION, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The WCAB granted reconsideration and reversed a prior award for interpreting services, finding the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof. The claimant did not demonstrate the interpreting services were reasonable, necessary, or provided by qualified interpreters. Crucially, the medical provider's office advertised Spanish-speaking staff, and the doctor himself spoke Spanish, negating the necessity for external interpretation services. Therefore, the lien for interpreter fees was disallowed.

WCABReconsiderationLien ClaimantInterpreting ServicesQualified InterpreterReasonablenessNecessityBurden of ProofLabor Code Section 4600Labor Code Section 5811
References
Case No. ADJ8543406
Regular
Jun 01, 2018

JOSE HERNANDEZ vs. ALBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's denial of sanctions for delayed payment of interpreter services. The Board found that the interpreter services for the Compromise and Release were reasonable and necessary under AD Rule 9795.3. Defendant received the invoice on February 24, 2016, but did not pay it until August 2, 2017, exceeding the 60-day payment requirement of AD Rule 9795.4. Therefore, the Board rescinded the prior findings and returned the matter for further proceedings on the petitions for costs and sanctions.

WCABJoyce Altman InterpretersAD Rule 9795.4AD Rule 9795.3Labor Code Section 5813Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCompromise and ReleaseInterpreter ServicesClaims Administrator
References
Case No. ADJ163338
En Banc
Mar 17, 2011

Jose Guitron vs. Santa Fe Extruders, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board holds that employers must provide reasonably required interpreter services during medical treatment for non-English speaking workers under Labor Code section 4600, and clarifies the burden of proof for interpreter lien claimants.

WCABEn BancLien ClaimantInterpreting ServicesMedical TreatmentLabor Code Section 4600Reasonably RequiredBurden of ProofQualified InterpreterMedical-Legal Expenses
References
Case No. ADJ1972276 (LAO 0862108) ADJ2914408 (LAO 0889233)
Regular
Mar 07, 2011

AMANDA CORONADO vs. BALLY'S TOTAL FITNESS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant, E&M Interpreting, seeking payment for alleged interpretation services during the applicant's medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision that E&M failed to meet its burden of proof. Specifically, E&M did not demonstrate the qualifications of its interpreters or the necessity of the services provided. The Board affirmed that lien claimants must prove both the reasonableness and necessity of services, as well as the qualifications of the individuals providing them, to be entitled to payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationQualified interpretersBurden of proofInterpretation servicesMedical treatment appointmentsAdministrative law judgeFindings and OrderBilling
References
Case No. ADJ2454787 OXN 0130418, ADJ4243140 (OXN 0130419)
Regular
Dec 23, 2008

ALMALILIA MARTINEZ vs. TRACEY VILLA, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE OF HARTFORD, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reimbursement for interpreter services provided to a non-English speaking applicant during medical treatment appointments. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that interpreter services can be a compensable cost under Labor Code section 4600 as an adjunct to medical treatment. The matter is remanded for the Workers' Compensation Judge to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the interpreter services for treatment visits, and to re-evaluate penalties and interest.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryInterpreting ServicesLabor Code Section 4600Administrative Director Rule 9795.3Medical Treatment AppointmentsQualified Interpreter
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,763 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational