In State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS), the WCAB has provided much-needed clarity on interpreter fee disputes that significantly benefit claims administrators. The decision addresses two critical issues: the establishment of interpreter market rates and when disputing such rates constitutes bad faith under Labor Code Section 5813.
Market Rate Standards Clarified
On the interpreter fee issue, the WCAB rejected the defense argument that establishing a market rate requires evidence of what other interpreters charge in the geographic area. Instead, the WCAB held that interpreters can establish their market rate through documentation of their own recent similar services and amounts previously paid. This portion of the ruling suggests claims administrators may need to look beyond the Superior Court fee schedule when an interpreter provides proper documentation of consistently receiving higher rates.
Notably, the WCAB also addressed the scope of market rate payments beyond formal hearings. While the defendant argued that market rates only apply to court hearings, arbitrations, and depositions, the WCAB implicitly endorsed their application to other settings like Compromise and Release signings when properly documented. This practical approach recognizes the reality that interpreter services are often crucial for settlement discussions and other informal proceedings.
Victory on Bad Faith Challenge
In a significant win for the defense community, the WCAB reversed the WCJ’s award of sanctions and fees. The Board held that reasonably disputing an interpreter’s claimed market rate does not automatically constitute bad faith warranting Labor Code Section 5813 sanctions. This ruling provides important protection for claims administrators who maintain consistent and documented payment practices.
Practical Impact for Claims Handling
The case arose from a common scenario in workers’ compensation claims handling. An interpreter provided services during settlement discussions and a Compromise and Release signing; billing $350.00 per service. The claims administrator paid the Superior Court fee schedule rate of $156.56, disputing payment of the higher claimed market rate. The interpreter sought the balance plus sanctions, costs, and attorney’s fees under Labor Code Section 5813, arguing the denial constituted bad faith.
This decision recognizes the reality that claims professionals must make reasonable business decisions about payment of interpreter fees. While the Board upheld interpreters’ right to establish market rates above the fee schedule, it emphasized that claims administrators can legitimately require proper documentation and verification. A good faith dispute over such documentation will not trigger sanctions.
Moving Forward
Looking ahead, this decision provides a framework for managing interpreter fee disputes that balance the interests of both sides. Claims can maintain reasonable cost control measures while interpreters retain the ability to establish market rates when properly documented. The key takeaway is that good faith disputes over such rates, even if ultimately unsuccessful, will not expose claims administrators to Labor Code Section 5813 sanctions.
This blog post was prepared by Yrulegui & Roberts, a workers’ compensation defense firm serving California’s Central Valley and beyond. For more information about our services, visit www.rjylaw.com.
Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Each case is unique, and outcomes may vary based on specific facts and circumstances. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. For specific legal advice, please contact our office directly.
