ADJ17404265 · August 10, 2026

Cost petitioner met burden of proof under Labor Code sections 4620 and 4621; defendant paid $75 cancellation fee late; cost petitioner entitled to penalties and interest under section 4622; defendant's petition for costs and sanctions denied; issue of defendant's liability under WCAB Rule 10786(i) deferred for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 9For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that cost petitioner’s Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings of Fact of May 27, 2026 is AFFIRMED except that it is AMENDED as provided below. This matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FINDINGS OF FACT *** 5. Cost petitioner, Document Analyst Group, Inc., met its burden of proof under Labor Code section 4620 to show that a contested claim existed at the time it provided its medical-legal services beginning on May 23, 2023, and that the services were reasonable and necessary at the time the costs were incurred pursuant to Labor Code sections 4620 and 4621. Defendant issued payment of $75.00 on invoice number 131263 on April 22, 2025. Cost petitioner is entitled to penalties and interest pursuant to Labor Code section 4622. The issue of the amount of penalties and interest is deferred to be adjusted by the parties with jurisdiction reserved to the WCJ in the event of a dispute.

Cost petitioner issued invoice for $75 cancellation fee on January 8, 2024, and defendant did not pay until April 22, 2025, after petition for reimbursement was filed.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Late payment triggered entitlement to penalties and interest under Labor Code section 4622.

From the decision · page 8There is no reason that defendant was not aware that sanctions, costs, and attorney’s fees were at issue. We again emphasize that parties are expected to resolve disputes amicably wherever possible, to try only those issues that are genuinely in controversy, and to avoid needless waste of scarce WCAB resources. Accordingly, we grant cost petitioner’s Petition for Reconsideration, affirm the F&O, except that we amend the F&O to find that cost petitioner has met its burden of proof pursuant to sections 4620 and 4621, that cost petitioner was paid the $75.00 on April 22, 2025 and is entitled to penalties and interest pursuant to section 4622, that cost petitioner raised the issue of defendant’s liability under WCAB Rule 10786(i) on the PTCS, and that defendant’s petition for costs and sanctions is denied, and to defer the issue of defendant’s liability under WCAB Rule 10786(i). We return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cost petitioner raised issue of defendant's liability for attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions under WCAB Rule 10786(i) on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supports finding that issue was properly raised and not moot.

From the decision · page 96. Cost petitioner raised the issue of whether defendant is liable under WCAB Rule 10786(i) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10786(i)) for attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions due to bad faith actions on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement.

Colamonico v. Secure Transportation (2019) 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 1059 (Appeals Board en banc)

Cost petitioner must establish contested claim existed, expenses were reasonable and necessary, and expenses were for proving or disproving the contested claim under Labor Code sections 4620, 4621, and 4622.

Applied to determine entitlement to payment and penalties for medical-legal expenses.

From the decision · page 6in our en banc decision in Colamonico v. Secure Transportation (2019) 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 1059 (Appeals Board en banc), section 4622 provides the framework for reimbursement of medical- legal expenses. Subsection (f) of the statute, however, specifically states that “[t]his section is not applicable unless there has been compliance with Sections 4620 and 4621.” (§ 4622(f).) Thus, a cost petitioner is required to establish that: 1) a contested claim existed at the time the expenses were incurred; 2) the expenses were incurred for the purpose of proving or disproving the contested claim; and 3) the expenses were reasonable and necessary at the time were incurred. (§§ 4620, 4621, 4622(f); Colamonico, supra, 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 1059.) Here, in her Opinion, the WCJ concluded that a contested claim existed at the time that cost petitioner subpoenaed the records from applicant’s employer and that the subpoena was reasonable and necessary.

Defendant's payment of $75 cancellation fee was late, after cost petitioner filed petition for reimbursement, supporting entitlement to penalties and interest.

From the decision · page 8There is no reason that defendant was not aware that sanctions, costs, and attorney’s fees were at issue. We again emphasize that parties are expected to resolve disputes amicably wherever possible, to try only those issues that are genuinely in controversy, and to avoid needless waste of scarce WCAB resources. Accordingly, we grant cost petitioner’s Petition for Reconsideration, affirm the F&O, except that we amend the F&O to find that cost petitioner has met its burden of proof pursuant to sections 4620 and 4621, that cost petitioner was paid the $75.00 on April 22, 2025 and is entitled to penalties and interest pursuant to section 4622, that cost petitioner raised the issue of defendant’s liability under WCAB Rule 10786(i) on the PTCS, and that defendant’s petition for costs and sanctions is denied, and to defer the issue of defendant’s liability under WCAB Rule 10786(i). We return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.