CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, and Adjusted By. INTERCARE, CATHY BILLUPS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACATHY BILLUPS, Applicant,vs.CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,Permissibly Self-Insured, and Adjusted By. INTERCARE, Defendant(s).OPINION AND ORDERDENYING RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of our October 5, 2009 “Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration,” in which we granted reconsideration and rescinded that portion the of decision of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) that found defendant had engaged in bad-faith actions or tactics that were frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and that allowed applicant’s attorney a fee in the amount of $3,850.00. We otherwise affirmed the WCJ’s July 8, 2009 Findings and Award, in which he also found that applicant was in need of further medical treatment, that defendant unreasonably delayed authorization for an epidural injection,1 and that applicant was entitled to increased compensation for defendant’s unreasonable delay in authorizing medical treatment pursuant to Labor Code section 5814. Applicant’s underlying claim involves her admitted back injury which occurred while she was employed as a nursing assistant on February 21, 2007. In her Petition for Reconsideration, applicant contends that we erred in denying Labor Code section 5813 sanctions and an additional attorney’s fee where the request for treatment was made six months earlier than defendant’s denial, the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) stated that the treatment was necessary, and the Utilization Review (UR) denial did not specify the specialty of 1For the sake of clarity, we note that at page 7, line 6 of our decision, we erroneously stated “defendant reasonably delayed” its authorization of applicant’s epidural. The remainder of the sentence and the rest of the decis
