Ramirez Robles: A Settlement Interpreter Dispute Required Findings, Not a Generic Fee Order

Ramirez Robles v. Rausch, No. ADJ11023915 (WCAB June 24, 2022), concerns the reasoning required to adjudicate a settlement interpreter’s fee. The panel granted reconsideration, rescinded the workers’ compensation judge’s order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. It supplied a framework for analysis while expressly leaving the fee dispute unresolved.

A settlement reading generated a small unpaid balance

The worker alleged a cumulative injury arising from employment as a manager. After earlier stipulated benefits and a petition to reopen, the parties executed a compromise and release. AB Interpreters provided services reading the settlement to the applicant on November 5, 2020. The settlement was later approved. The provider billed $275, received $156.56, and sought the remaining $118.44. Ramirez Robles, slip op. at 2.

The dispute reached the WCJ, who issued an order referring generally to Labor Code section 4600(a) and Rule 9795.3. The order did not provide the findings, calculation, and explanatory opinion needed to decide the parties’ actual disagreement. The provider petitioned for reconsideration and also raised an attorney-fee request.

Section 5313 required an explained decision

The Board began with Labor Code section 5313: A decision must contain findings on the material issues and an opinion stating the reasons. It relied on the explanatory-decision principles in the en banc decision Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp., 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 473 (WCAB 2001). The parties and a reviewing tribunal need to know which evidence supports the result. Ramirez Robles, slip op. at 2–3.

Merely naming a fee provision did not discharge that obligation. Without findings about the service and the disputed charges, the order did not reveal why a particular payment was owed or whether the parties’ objections had been resolved. The defect justified rescission and remand rather than appellate calculation of a fee on an unexplained record.

The service was nonmedical settlement interpreting

The Board also identified an important classification problem. Labor Code sections 4600(g) and 4603.2 govern interpreting associated with medical treatment and its billing process. Section 5811(b)(2) and Administrative Director Rule 9795.3 concern interpreting in nonmedical settings. Reading a compromise and release to the applicant was the service presented here. Id. at 4–5.

The panel distinguished Meadowbrook Insurance Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 42 Cal. App. 5th 432 (2019), because that published decision addressed medical-treatment interpreting. It did not treat every interpreting service in a workers’ compensation claim as medical care. Nor did the panel itself settle every question about the applicable rate subdivision or the proof needed for the provider’s requested amount.

The disposition preserved the merits for further proceedings

The Board expressly declined to decide the fee dispute’s merits. It rescinded the WCJ’s order and returned the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion. Its suggestion that a status conference might resolve a dispute whose litigation costs could exceed the unpaid balance was a practical observation, not an award of the balance or attorney fees. Id. at 5–6.

This is a WCAB panel decision, with persuasive rather than en banc precedential force. Its useful lesson is the connection among service classification, evidence, findings, and review. The June 24 order does not establish what happened on remand. A party relying on a later payment or fee award would need that later record rather than treating the remand itself as a final recovery.

What this means for a disputed provider fee

The panel’s express reservation matters as much as its procedural ruling. A provider relying on this decision still needs evidence supporting the service and amount, and the payer may contest issues left open on remand. The opinion supports an explained adjudication; it does not replace that adjudication with an award of the invoice or litigation costs.

The decision states:

“Although we are not making a ruling as to the issues submitted by the parties”

Ramirez Robles, slip op. at 3.

Questions about this issue

What was the decisive procedural defect?

The WCJ’s order lacked the findings and explanation required to resolve the disputed interpreter fee.

Why did Meadowbrook not resolve this dispute?

It concerned medical-treatment interpreting; this record concerned reading a settlement to the applicant.

Was an attorney fee awarded?

The panel did not decide that request on the merits when it remanded the dispute.

Continue with Interpreting a Workers’ Comp Settlement: Build the Right Fee-Dispute Record.

Read the primary decision: Ramirez Robles, June 24, 2022 panel decision (PDF).