ADJ8866704 · June 29, 2026

The WCAB found that the cost petitioner met its burden to prove a contested claim existed at the time the services were rendered, contrary to the WCJ's prior finding, based on the evidence of disputed liability and contested issues including temporary disability indemnity.

From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ did not find that a contested claim existed as of May 30, 2013 or May 31, 2013, when the subpoenas were issued because the claim associated with ADJ8866704 was accepted with benefits paid on May 22, 2013. (Report, at p. 2.) As is demonstrated by the C&R and the WCJ's OACR, defendant only accepted liability for injury to the left thumb, even though applicant's hand was identified as a claimed body part. Notably, no medical records have ever been submitted. Defendant disputed liability for temporary disability indemnity benefits throughout the pendency of ADJ8866704, and as evidenced by the Application, temporary disability indemnity was a contested issue in ADJ8866704, and it was not resolved until the settlement of the case-in-chief. Accordingly, we disagree with the WCJ's finding as to whether a contested claim existed because the WCJ appears to construe the meaning of "for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim" very narrowly.

Defendant disputed liability for temporary disability indemnity benefits throughout the pendency of ADJ8866704 and did not stipulate to injury arising out of and in the course of employment for either injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This demonstrated that a contested claim existed at the time the services were rendered, supporting the cost petitioner's burden of proof under Labor Code section 4620(b).

From the decision · page 3employment (AOE/COE) for either injury. (Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Evidence, December 23, 2025, p. 2.) Defendant raised the issue of "Whether the petitioner can show that a contested claim existed at the time of the expense under Labor Code section 4620(b)." (Id. at p. 3.) Despite its stipulation that the two injuries were only claimed and not admitted, defendant submitted evidence regarding payment of temporary disability benefits (Exhibits A and B), apparently to show that the claim was not contested.

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

A lien claimant holds the initial burden of proof under Labor Code sections 4620 and 4621 to show that a contested claim existed at the time the expenses were incurred, that the expenses were incurred for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim, and that its services were reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred.

The Appeals Board applied this standard to find that the cost petitioner met its burden to prove a contested claim existed at the time the services were rendered.

From the decision · page 4II. Pursuant to Colamonico v. Secure Transportation (2019) 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 1059 (Appeals Board en banc), a lien claimant holds the initial burden of proof pursuant under sections 4620 and 4621: that a contested claim existed at the time the expenses were incurred, that the expenses were incurred for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim, and that its services were reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred. We stated that: Section 4620(a) defines a medical-legal expense as a cost or expense that a party incurs "for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim." (§ 4620(a).) Copy service fees are considered medical-legal expenses under section 4620(a). (Citations) Lien claimant's initial burden in proving entitlement to reimbursement for a medical-legal expense is to show that a "contested claim" existed at the time the service was performed. Subsection (b) sets forth the parameters for determining whether a contested claim existed. (§ 4620(b).) Essentially, there is a contested claim when: 1) the employer knows or reasonably should know of an employee's claim for workers' compensation benefits; and 2) the employer denies the

Defendant disputed liability for temporary disability indemnity throughout the pendency of ADJ8866704 and did not stipulate to injury arising out of and in the course of employment for either injury.

From the decision · page 3employment (AOE/COE) for either injury. (Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Evidence, December 23, 2025, p. 2.) Defendant raised the issue of "Whether the petitioner can show that a contested claim existed at the time of the expense under Labor Code section 4620(b)." (Id. at p. 3.) Despite its stipulation that the two injuries were only claimed and not admitted, defendant submitted evidence regarding payment of temporary disability benefits (Exhibits A and B), apparently to show that the claim was not contested.