UCI Medical Center, Sedgwick CMS Lynn Mott WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALYNN MOTT, Applicant,vs.UCI MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CMS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7457572 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of the “Order Denying Labor Code Section 5710 Attorney Fee Request”, issued June 23, 2011, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied applicant counsel’s request for attorney fees pursuant to Labor Code section 5710(b)(4). In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ noted that applicant failed to attach documents which showed that “applicant was advised a hearing representative was attending the deposition with her; that the hearing representative actually assisted in the deposition (i.e. the deposition transcript or selected portions showing his assistance at the deposition) and/or that applicant’s law firm employs the hearing representative and supervises him i.e. hearing representative authorization signed by applicant and applicant’s law firm.” (Report, p. 2.) The WCJ further acknowledged that 99 Cents Only Stores v. W.C.A.B (Arriaga) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 644, 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 456, allowed attorney fees to non-attorney hearing representatives under certain circumstances. However, a petitioning party must show that those non-attorney representatives were adequately supervised “by an identified attorney and full disclosure occurred on the record and to the injured worker.” (Arriaga at 459.) Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by denying applicant’s fee request arguing that the non- lawyer representative sent to the deposition was “a law school graduate with 43 years experience in workers’ compensation” (Petition, p. 2 1. 7) and that the non-attorney representative was supervised by applicant’s attorney of record. (Petition, p. 3 1. 26, 27.) Applicant further
