Modification: Meadowbrook Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DFS INTERPRETING et al.,

Respondents. C088882

(W.C.A.B. Nos. ADJ10348591, ADJ10349019)

California Courts of Appeal

Third Appellate District

(Butte)

Filed December 20, 2019

MODIFICATION OF OPINION AND DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

Appellant filed a petition for rehearing with this court. It is hereby ordered that the petition for rehearing is denied.

It is also ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 21, 2019, be modified as follows:

A new footnote 5 is to be inserted in the second paragraph under heading "C. Failure to Request a Second Review" immediately following the second sentence, which ends with the words "explanation of review," to read:

⁵ In its petition for rehearing, DFS contends we failed to address its argument that the record does not show Meadowbrook paid DFS for the interpreting services, and thus we should have addressed DFS's assertion in its answer to the petition: "It must be inferred that there was some other issue involved with these dates of services beyond the rate being charged by DFS Interpreting." DFS again contends on rehearing that "[w]hatever that issue was, it was more than just the 'amount of payment.' " DFS adds, "there must have been more than just a dispute as to the amount of the payment." We decline to conclude the WCAB retains jurisdiction of the parties' dispute over the amount of payment based on DFS's speculative inference that there "must have been more" at issue between the parties. DFS neither raised this issue, whatever it may be, nor supported it with evidence at trial, and it points to no evidence in the record substantiating its requested inference.

The remaining footnote is to be renumbered accordingly.

This modification does not change the judgment.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/

Raye, P. J.

/s/

Hull, J.

/s/

Duarte, J.