Tag Archives: liens

SB 863 Update: Is the California Workers’ Compensation System Better Than it Was One Year Ago?

The passage of SB 863 in California came with a promise of higher benefits for injured workers and lower costs for employers.  Just over one year later, where does this promise stand?There has been improvement, but there is still a long way to go.

I recently attended and spoke at the California Workers’ Compensation & Risk Conference in Dana Point, California, where, as expected, the major focus was SB 863.  Just over one year ago, employers and labor came together at the end of the legislative term to pass a bill designed to improve benefits for workers and reduce costs for employers.

I moderated the opening session, which was a diverse panel featuring representatives from employers, carriers, injured workers, and medical providers. My first question to the panel set the tone for the rest of the session, and for the rest of the conference. That question was: “From your viewpoint, is the California workers’ compensation system better off now than it was a year ago?”

Before you can gauge the success of SB 863, you must remember where we started.  Permanent disability (PD) benefits to injured workers had been cut significantly under prior reforms, so injured workers were unhappy with the system. Employers were equally unhappy, as workers’ compensation costs in California had been increasing steadily for years.

With a system that both injured workers and employers were very dissatisfied with, something had to be done.

SB 863 provided an immediate increase in permanent disability benefits for accidents occurring after 10/10/2013.  PD is being increased by a total of 30%, phased in over two years. There is also a $120 million fund to compensate certain workers who are unable to return to their pre-injury job because of physical restrictions.

The savings for employers are to come over time.  The largest of the savings under SB 863 are to come from changing the processes for liens and medical disputes. Thus far, these changes are receiving mixed reviews.

On the plus side, liens have fallen significantly since a fee for filing them was implemented Jan. 1. Some of the drop can be attributed to the fact that medical providers filed all the liens they could before the fee took effect. However, there clearly has been a significant drop in new liens filed.

The filing fee is being challenged, though, by a lawsuit that seeks to have it declared unconstitutional, and some of the anticipated savings from SB 863 are likely to be eroded if the courts don’t uphold the fee.

The bill also restructured the medical dispute resolution process, with the introduction of the Independent Medical Review (IMR). The IMR process was modeled after successful programs in states such as Texas. It is designed to have physicians, not judges, deciding disputed medical issues. It is also designed to expedite resolution so appropriate treatment is provided to injured workers in a timely manner. The IMR process clearly remains a work in progress. First, 10 months after implementation, the process is still operating under emergency rules. Until the final rules are in place, those participating in the process will face uncertainty. Second, it appears there is significant gaming of the IMR process. Approximately 16,000 requests were filed in both August and September of this year alone, significantly more than anticipated.  In one month, there were more disputes filed than in an entire year for the same process under group health.  Employers alone bear the costs of the IMR process, so those filing all these requests may be attempting to cripple the system at absolutely no cost to themselves.

The issues facing the IMR and lien processes illustrate what many see as the major impediment to delivering cost savings for employers in California: There are special interest groups that do not want the system to become more efficient and self-executing, because they make a great deal of money off the chaos.

In her speech at the conference, Christine Baker, director of the California Department of Industrial Relations, expressed concern about “significant gaming.” While this gaming is not unique to California, from my national viewpoint its impact on the workers’ compensation system is more profound in California than in other states.

The biggest challenge is that the workers’ comp system in California is flawed by design. No other state has issues with medical liens in workers’ compensation. Bills are reduced to fee schedule with no further disputes seeking additional payment. Treatment that is not authorized is subject to litigation over necessity. If the employer prevails, “no” means “no.”  In California, “no” means “file a lien and litigate further.”

Another issue facing California employers is continuous trauma (CT) claims, which can be filed for a 1% aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The legislature recently fixed this problem for the National Football League by passing a bill specifically limiting CT claims by professional athletes, but CT claims in California continue to be a significant cost driver for other employers, and their frequency has more than doubled over the last 10 years.  It is common in California for injured workers to file both CT and specific injury claims for the same body part.  In no other state are CT claims as prevalent and embedded into the workers’ compensation system as they are in California.

In addition, allocated loss adjustment expenses (ALAE) covering items such as bill review, utilization review, and litigation costs are higher in California than other states, and these costs are increasing at an alarming rate.

The gaming of the system significantly increases the costs for employers and delays the delivery of benefits to injured workers.  The main stakeholders in workers’ compensation, the employers and workers, need to work together so that benefits can be delivered faster and at lower cost.  SB 863 was a step in this direction, but there is more work to be done. The people who worked together to make SB 863 a reality need to continue to work together to preserve the savings elements designed into the bill.  If they can do this, perhaps California can finally achieve some stability in its workers’ compensation marketplace, which would benefit both employers and injured workers.

The Rest Of The Story: In Defense Of Liens And Good Faith Negotiation

In late February 2013, the Audit Unit of the California Division of Workers Compensation provided a newsline release which dealt with good faith negotiations and liens. The release stated:

The Audit Unit of the Division of Workers' Compensation has received an increasing number of complaints from individuals and entities providing services on a lien basis in workers' compensation claims. The complainants report that some payors have adopted a policy of refusing to discuss negotiating the provider's liens until the provider of the services demonstrates it has filed a lien with the WCAB and paid the applicable lien filing or activation fee required by the enactment of SB 863. Such a policy is both unsupported by the plain language of Labor Code sections 4903.05 or 4903.06, and directly contrary to the legislative intent of those sections and existing law.

If a claims administrator has reasonable grounds to contend that nothing is owed, then good faith negotiation does not necessarily require an offer of compromise. In the absence of a good faith contention that nothing is owed, however, a refusal to negotiate prior to payment of the filing fee would not be in good faith.

Additionally, Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 10109(e) mandates that “[a]ll Insurers, self-insured employers and third-party administrators shall deal fairly and in good faith with all claimants, including lien claimants.”

Title 8 California Code of Regulations, section 10250(b) requires a moving party state under penalty of perjury that the moving party has made a genuine good faith effort to resolve the dispute before filing the Declaration of Readiness (DOR). Forcing a provider to file a lien and pay the filing or activation fee before the payor will discuss informal resolution of their billing amount prevents the provider from complying with this mandate. Such conduct could expose the payor to the imposition of sanctions, attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code section 5813. This practice also exposes the payor to audit penalties for violation of Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 10109(e). As is the Audit Unit's existing practice, the Audit Unit will review all complaints received about this practice during the next random or targeted audit of any payor about whom such a complaint has been received.

This release has prompted quite a bit of commentary. Most have discussed the impact the directive will have on the ongoing lien problem that plagues the Workers' Compensation system in California as a whole. Many comment on the sins of the defense-side of the system. Shortly after I read this release, I read a blog update from David DePaolo, President and CEO of WCCentral. If you do not read Mr. DePaolo's blog or his updates, I would encourage you to do so. They are excellent reading. In his blog article, he stated that the Division of Workers Compensation has finally listened to the various lien claimant representatives who are complaining that the defense is not negotiating in good faith with them when they contact examiners regarding their liens. He had previously written a blog on what he argued was “despicable behavior.”

I acknowledge that there are claims examiners and other support staff who may not deal in good faith when it comes to liens. However, does the blame for the inability or refusal to negotiate in good faith fall solely at the feet of the defendant? As a former claims examiner, I would loudly proclaim, “No!” There are two sides to the story. It is time to examine both.

SB 863 brought back a common sense approach to liens. Lien claimants can no longer simply paper a defendant with a green (or any other color) lien sheet and “claim” a lien is filed. They now must demonstrate they are a proper lien claimant by paying a filing fee to activate new or existing liens, and prove to both the payor (defendant) and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that they are justified in their demands for the time needed to negotiate.

Further, as the Torres decision states, they must also prove up their lien and assertion that the recovery they are seeking is due and proper. I would also argue that the Torres decision shed some light on one of the biggest challenges to negotiating liens: a lack of solid proof provided by the lien claimant. I believe it was the intent of SB 863 to take large steps to end frivolous lien filings and lien practices that clog every Workers' Compensation Appeals Board across the State.

The Division of Workers Compensation claims that requiring a lien to be filed and activation fee to be paid before lien negotiations commence is contrary to the plain language of Labor Code § 4903.5 and § 4903.6, as well as the legislative intent behind those sections and existing law. These sections deal with time frames and a statute of limitations for lien claimants to file their liens. They also protect the injured worker from the underlying obligation to pay for the service if a lien is not properly filed.

In my reading of these Labor Code sections, nowhere do I see an obligation for the defendant to address liens without a proper filing, as they can pay their fee well before the requirement to file a Declaration of Readiness is completed. In fact, these sections specifically require the lien claimant to adhere to the requirements of filing and proof of the same. SB 863 instructs the lien claimant to activate a lien by paying the fee.

The Division of Workers Compensation also states that a requirement to pay the activation fee prevents the lien claimants from negotiating in good faith prior to filing for a hearing. How does requiring the payment of a lien fee prevent the lien claimants from later asserting they could not negotiate in good faith prior to filing a Declaration of Readiness? I would argue that the filing fee lets the defendant know that the lien claimant is a proper party to the action. The lien claimant is not required to pay the filing fee at the same time the Declaration of Readiness is filed. The Division of Workers Compensation appears to indicate otherwise. Lien claimants have every opportunity to file their activation fee and then negotiate with the defendant over genuine disputes regarding payment and services.

We must also remember that SB 863 placed safeguards for lien claimants to recover filing fees as well as interest. They simply need to make a demand 30 days prior to filing a Declaration of Readiness. If the defendant fails to respond within 20 days and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and/or arbitrator eventually awards the amount of the original demand or more, they will be able to collect. Therefore, it appears the intent of the legislature was to hold both the lien claimant and the defendant accountable for good faith actions.

The lien claimant acts in good faith by paying a filing fee to activate their lien and then make a good faith demand. The defendant then has the responsibility of addressing the demand and negotiating in good faith, or pay the price for the failure to do so. I would add that the Division of Workers Compensation requires that a lien claimant file their activation fee and show proof of payment prior to the filing of a Declaration of Readiness, or by the date of the lien conference if they are not the party who filed for the hearing. See instructions at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/liens.htm.

We have already seen a host of cases where lien claimants were dismissed for failure to show proof of their activation payment either at the time they filed the Declaration of Readiness or alternatively, prior to the hearing. However, we have also seen instances where the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board allows lien claimants to file on the morning of the hearing, even when the lien claimant was the party who filed the Declaration of Readiness. Why are we asserting a lien filing fee under SB 863 if we are permitting lien claimants to file and then argue on the day of court they are in “compliance” because on the morning of, or immediately prior to the hearing, they paid their filing fee?

Greg Jones of www.workcompcentral.com recently published statistics on the surge in liens filed in the latter half and most notably, the final quarter of 2012. His article stated that the largest unknown is how many of the liens filed will be “activated” and what the impact of the filing fee has on liens. Recall for liens filed after 1/1/13, the $150 activation fee applies. For liens filed before 1/1/13, it is $100. In both instances, the fees do not have to be filed until the matter is addressed at a hearing, or as late as 1/1/14. That allows for up to an entire year of negotiations on what would be considered an “inactive” lien. I see the mass filings in 2012 as evidence that lien claimants do not wish to process the filing fee. At the same time, they demand the defendants deal with them regardless of whether or not their liens are active.

I believe there were good intentions behind the Division of Workers Compensation's mandate. They are letting everyone know that negotiation during the claims process benefits everyone. And, it will help relieve the unbearable pressure the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board presently faces from dealing with an endless sea of liens. That being said, defendants should consider exactly what “good faith” really means, and how certain scenarios could result in a different number of conversations. I can assure you that your definition and the definition of most lien representatives will be different.

With all of this in mind, let us discuss specific scenarios and recommendations.

  1. Negotiation during active treatment: I would argue that unless the case has been settled and the treatment is future medical in nature, or if the lien claimant can document they will not treat the applicant again, the lien cannot be addressed. Some examples would be certain diagnostic testing, former physical therapy locations, or prior treating physicians.
  2. Future treatment: If you are negotiating prior to the resolution of the claim, ensure that the lien claimant will not be providing treatment in the future if at all possible. It makes no sense to deal with a new lien from the same lien claimant.
  3. MPN arguments: If the treatment is based on non-MPN care, and if you can establish a proper Medical Provider Network was in place and proper notices were provided, litigate the Medical Provider Network issue as soon as possible. Prior to medical-legal evaluations and prior to the lien drastically expanding in size, as we know it will.
  4. Petitions vs. liens: Certain groups such as copy services and interpreters, are arguing that a Petition for Costs is appropriate for their services. This is an ongoing issue that will require further litigation. At minimum, I would argue that if this is asserted after the case in chief has resolved, they are too late to assert the Petition as one of the parties (i.e. the applicant) has resolved their portion of the claim.
  5. Claims notes: Document your files and claims notes often. Make your arguments clear and understandable. Claims notes can be used as evidence if needed. Also document calls when you leave a message.
  6. Appeals: If a lien claimant is arguing fee schedule with you, ask them to submit their bill and supporting documentation, with a proof of service, for an appeal of the claims administrator's prior findings. The appeal will either generate new money for the provider, or firm up your argument that nothing is owed.
  7. Zero dollars: If you truly believe nothing further is owed, it is not bad faith to assert the same. You paid per fee schedule. There is a Medical Provider Network issue. They have not proven their services were reasonable, approved, or rendered. The list is endless. The key is to document your case for $0.00 recovery and make sure your foundation actually exists.
  8. Help your cause: Provide your attorney with all Explanations of Benefits during administration of the claim and after the case has settled. Provide them with any and all objection letters and involve them in the ongoing objection and negotiation process. Your attorney will need these to negotiate in good faith.
  9. Aggressive representation: Make sure your attorney is aggressive. It may surprise you to know that the many providers use the same representatives to handle Workers' Compensation Appeals Board matters. Your attorney likely deals with a few people time and time again. They remember the aggressive attorney who knows their file. Additionally, make sure your counsel is not too cozy with them. They can be polite and friendly. Your attorney should never speak ill of their client, or their position.
  10. Make them prove their case: Require the lien claimant serve you with all of their supporting documentation, not simply a bill and a report. If they intend on relying upon case law, statute, “usual and customary” arguments, or anything else, ask them to submit it to you prior to negotiation. They will ask the same thing from you. See the Torres decision.
  11. Assignments: Make sure the lien claimant or representative has complied with the rules regarding assignment. If they have not properly notified the parties of the assignment of the lien (or multiple assignments) a recommendation to dismiss the lien should be made at the time of hearing.
  12. Pick your date and time: The Division of Workers Compensation requires you negotiate in good faith. However, there is no requirement that negotiations must occur every day at any time. Many of my clients designate one or two days out of the week to devote to liens. In my opinion, this is acceptable, as long as you are actively answering the phone, or responding to a fax or email.
  13. Verify: If a lien claimant states that they have filed their lien activation payment, request it to verify. You are not asking for the lien filing fee to be paid. You are merely asking for verification to determine if a lack of filing fee will be an issue at the time of the hearing.
  14. Release the small fish: Resolving the very minor liens during the claims adjusting process will often make your outlook appear brighter. As the lien list shrinks to only a handful of large lien holders, the final lien process will seem more palatable.

I predict that an increasing number of lien claimants will assert that bad faith actions are taking place, even during active negotiations. Do not be afraid to assert that nothing more is owed if you have complied with bill review and timely payment, if your Medical Provider Network is secure, or if your arguments are sound. Otherwise, pick up the phone and talk.

Changes In California Workers' Compensation

Out of the Frying Pan And Into The Fire — Jumping Into SB 863

As we look toward 2013, one thing is certain — it will be a year of change for California workers’ compensation. With the passing of the hotly debated reform legislation, SB 863, which takes effect on January 1, 2013, proponents are hopeful that the changes will have a positive impact on the current state of California’s workers’ compensation system. While SB 863 was drafted to reform the workers’ compensation system, its intent is different than that of SB 899, legislation passed in 2004. SB 899 revamped and reduced workers’ compensation benefits. SB 863 increases benefits to the injured employees while decreasing system costs by improving efficiency and eliminating “waste” in the form of excessive medical and legal costs.

There is no question that SB 863 addresses key issues that have been on the forefront of debate following the implementation of SB 899, many of which are positive for both employers and injured employees. While most agree that reform was needed, the net effect that the SB 863 changes will have on California insurance rates is also hotly debated because of other factors that need to be considered including carrier loss ratios and economic factors. While the regulations are still being drafted, the following summarizes some of the highlights, possible challenges and the potential impact on California workers’ compensation rates.

Indemnity Benefits
While successfully addressing a number of failings in the workers’ compensation system, it is widely accepted that one of the failings that SB 863 will address is one of the unintended results of the implementation of SB 899 in 2004 — that permanent disability rates provided inadequate compensation to some injured employees. The SB 863 legislation:

  • Increases permanent disability payouts over a 2-year period with annual adjustments
  • Eliminates “add-ons” to permanent disability, including sleep disorder and sexual dysfunction, though psych will be allowed for catastrophic injury or violent workplace incident
  • Addresses Diminished Future Earnings Capacity (DFEC) via a standard multiplier to the permanent disability rating formula
  • Creates a Return to Work Program for those injured employees whose permanent disability is disproportionately low for their loss of earnings capacity
  • Caps the Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) at $6,000 — currently at $10,000

The increases in permanent disability benefits are expected to cost $310M next year and almost double in 2014. However, the elimination of some of the add-ons to permanent disability and changes to the impact of diminished future earnings capacity under the Ogilvie case are expected to save $210M per year. The Return to Work Program will be funded through employer assessments at a cost of $120M per year.

The Independent Medical Review (IMR) Process
SB 863 places California on the burner with what many consider a radical approach to addressing medical treatment disputes. The new Independent Medical Review Process contemplates the following:

  • The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board will no longer have jurisdiction to hear medical disputes directed to Independent Medical Review.
  • The Independent Medical Review process is binding on all parties with only limited appeal.
  • Employers shall fund the Independent Medical Review process, based on a fee schedule to be established by the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation.
  • Implementation will be staggered, beginning January 1, 2013 and being completed by July 1, 2013 and will apply to all Utilization Review decisions.

The Independent Medical Review process is expected to eliminate excessive costs and delays in litigating medical disputes. However, the savings attributable to the implementation and the costs to employers have not yet been quantified, as the process is still being defined. The California Applicants’ Attorneys’ Association is questioning whether the Independent Medical Review process meets due process requirements and it is likely that it will be challenged in court.

Liens
Historically, liens have been one of the biggest cost drivers in the workers’ compensation system, creating bottlenecks in litigation and an administrative burden on carriers and administrators. Following are some changes to the lien process under SB 863:

  • Firm time limits for filing liens
  • $150 lien filing fee — recoverable if the lien provider prevails
  • If not correctly filed, liens are null and void
  • Bundling of liens is prohibited
  • Prevents filing if lien is subject to the Independent Medical Review process

This aspect of SB 863 is applauded by most as defining a clear process for addressing liens while virtually eliminating unnecessary litigation and frivolous liens. A preliminary analysis by the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau states that these changes should result in a $450M annual savings to the industry.

Summary
Although many of the changes arising from SB 863 are positive for the future of California’s workers’ compensation system, there are still potential challenges and uncertainty. It is likely that the constitutionality of the Independent Medical Review process will be challenged in court. While the effect of Ogilvie has essentially been eliminated, Guzman is still active case law. Add-ons could become an issue again, depending on how “catastrophic injury” and “violent workplace incident” are defined. Further, carriers and administrators have new processes to implement by January 1, 2013, some of which have not yet been defined and will require specialized staffing.

The passing of SB 863 holds the promise of lower claims costs, improved efficiency and ultimately rate relief for California employers. Initial reports from the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau estimated savings at $1B the first year and $270M annually thereafter. However, these savings figures have been recently reduced in their latest report. The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau also reports a 0% increase to pure premium rates effective January 1, 2013, but there are other market factors that need to be considered when looking at the overall impact. Many carriers still have loss ratios around 130%, which along with medical inflation, was contributing to about an 18% rate increase without SB 863. With claim development still an issue and the potential increased cost of implementing some of the processes and benefits set forth in SB 863, it is likely that California will not see the immediate reduction in rates that it experienced following SB 899. Instead, there is hope that the provisions of the new reform will quell the burning increases in rates and bring some relief to employers in the form of stabilization and predictability.

InterWest Insurance Services is on the forefront of this legislation and has had representatives attend many of political hearings regarding SB 863. In early 2013, as part of the InterWest Employer’s School, we will hold several seminars on the SB 863 reform laws for our clients and prospective clients, focusing on its impact on California businesses and the insurance market.

Jennifer Weathersbee collaborated with Chuck Coppage in writing this article. Chuck Coppage manages the Alternative Markets Division for InterWest Insurance Services where he assists in identifying clients who would benefit from insurance solutions involving risk transfer as part of their overall financial management strategy.

Effectively Defending Against Interpreting Liens

Liens are a huge problem in California. Division of Workers Compensation Adminstrative Director Rosa Moran has recently stated that lien issues threaten the entire workers’ compensation system.1 Much of the focus is directed towards various areas of medical liens.

Interpreting liens are often overlooked as the actual dollar amount requested is typically much lower than medical liens. However, this doesn’t mean that you should be paying interpreting liens that aren’t legally owed simply to close a file.

You might be surprised to find out that much of the time you are probably paying interpreting fees that you don’t have to. In fact, on March 17, 2011 The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board issued an en banc decision detailing exactly what is required of interpreters in order to prove that they are entitled to their fees in the case of Jose Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders 76 Cal. Comp. Cases 228. This is the case that interpreters don’t want you to know about, because it is extremely difficult for interpreters to meet the legal requirements to obtain their fees.

When Are You Required To Pay Interpreter Fees?
The rules for when qualified interpreters are specifically required can be found under 8 CCR §9795.3. Generally speaking, interpreters are required for examinations by physicians at the request of the claims administrator, the administrative director or the appeals board, med-legal evaluations, depositions, hearings, conferences, arbitration and other settings determined by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to be reasonable and necessary to determine the validity and extent of injury to an employee. Additionally, Guitron provides that pursuant to the employer’s obligation under LC §4600 to provide medical treatment to the injured worker, interpreters must be provided to workers at medical examinations if the injured worker cannot speak, understand, or communicate in English.

What Are The Legal Requirements On The Interpreter To Recover Fees?
The interpreter has the legal burden of proof to show that the services provided:

  1. were reasonably required,
  2. were actually provided,
  3. were provided by someone qualified to do so, and
  4. were reasonably charged.

1. Services Were Reasonably Required
The injured worker will need an interpreter if he or she does “not proficiently speak or understand the English language.” (AD Rule 9795.3(a)) There are a number of ways this can be demonstrated. Interpreter use during a deposition can prove a need for an interpreter during medical and legal proceedings. A physician statement that an interpreter was required during a medical exam, an interpreter’s testimony or sworn statement that he or she confirmed with the physician or the attorney’s office that an interpreter was needed, or a worker’s testimony that an interpreter was needed can all prove that an interpreter was reasonably necessary. If the defendant has authorized interpreting services, the interpreter will not have to prove that interpreter services were required for every date of service.

2. Services Were Actually Provided
The interpreter must also prove that he or she was actually present on the date of service in question, and that services were actually rendered. Some ways that this can be shown include the deposition transcripts, or in the case of a medical examination, the doctor noting that the interpreter was present in the report. The interpreter can also have a medical examiner or the applicant sign a form that states that the named interpreter was present, and that an interpreter was actually needed. In the case of doctor’s evaluations, the form should also include that the doctor doesn’t speak the patient’s language, the doctor doesn’t provide interpreters, and that the office’s policy is that patients who are not proficient in English should be accompanied by an interpreter. There are of course other ways for an interpreter to prove that they were present. However, the interpreter must prove that they were present if you are going to pay for the bill. The burden is on the interpreter to prove this. It is almost always a good idea to also cross reference the medical report with the actual bill to verify that the interpreter named is the same on both documents.

3. Services Were Provided By Someone Qualified To Do So
The interpreter must be qualified to provide the billed services. Remember to always request information regarding an interpreter’s certification. Very often interpreters used are not legally certified. A qualified interpreter is a “certified” or “provisionally certified” interpreter pursuant to 8 CCR §9795.1(f). When the setting is not an appeals board hearing, arbitration or formal rehabilitation conference, and when a certified interpreter cannot be present, a “provisionally certified” interpreter may be used.

Provisionally certified interpreters are deemed to be certified by agreement of both parties (8 CCR 9795.1(e)). Often interpreters will claim they have been provisionally certified, but if you didn’t agree to the interpreters qualifications and they aren’t certified you probably don’t have to pay. However, be careful as Government Code Section 11435.55 provides that in medical examinations, if a certified interpreter cannot be present at a medical evaluation, “the physician provisionally may use another interpreter if that fact is noted in the record of the medical evaluation.” ‘Even though an interpreter must be certified for medical legal charges such as depositions and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board proceedings, an interpreter still must prove competence to provide these services. Simply claiming to be qualified is not sufficient. Items to request include training, education and the nature (type) of interpreting services provided.’

4. The Interpreter Must Show The Reasonableness Of Charges
Remember that the interpreter must prove that the charges are reasonable. You can look to 8CCR §9795.3(b)(2) for a fee schedule on interpreting fees. In most situations, the fee schedule will be $11.25 per quarter hour or portion thereof, with a two hour minimum, or the market rate, whichever is greater. The interpreter can establish the market rate for fee fees by submitting documentation to the claims administrator, including a list of recent similar services performed and the amounts paid for those services. Market rate is defined as “that amount an interpreter has actually been paid for recent interpreter services provided in connection with the preparation and resolution of an employee’s claim.”(8 CCR §9795.1(h)) Always argue that the market rate is fee schedule in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

The fee schedule does not apply to regular medical treatment. In cases of interpreting liens for medical treatment, the court relies on the factors enumerated in Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc.(67 Cal. Comp. Cases 1588). The court will consider: a) the usual fee accepted (not charged) by the interpreter, b) the usual fee accepted by other interpreters in the same geographical area, 3) other aspects of the provider’s practice that are relevant, and d) any unusual circumstances in the case. Once again, you can always argue that $11.25 per quarter hour is reasonable, and the two hour minimum may not apply. The interpreter could conceivably have only been at the doctor’s office for 15 minutes.

“Market rate studies that only site State Fund are insufficient. They should include payments from several carriers and for what types of services. Also, your attorney & need rebuttal evidence to market rate studies and they should include payments made to several interpreters if your case will be set for trial.”

In denied cases settled by Compromise & Release, the interpreter must prove AOE/COE issues to recover fees for non med-legal medical interpreting.

Just like with any other medical lien claimant, when a case has been settled by Compromise & Release and liability has been denied, the lien claimant must show that the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment, and that the medical treatment itself was reasonable and necessary. This is important to remember, as many disputed interpreter liens have to do with lien treatment by doctors. The burden is on the interpreter to prove AOE/COE issues and reasonableness of treatment in order to recover fees.

Conclusion
Remember that all of the above must be proven by the interpreter to recover fees. This is a relatively high burden of proof on the lien claimant, so make sure to demand all proper documentation before you pay interpreting fees. If they can’t provide all of the necessary documentation, you shouldn’t be paying.

1 “Moran Says Lien Problem Threatens Entire System” Greg Jones. Workcompcentral.com, 01/24/2012