MOCEO E.V. COMPANY; CIGA, PATSY VAN BUSKIRK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPATSY VAN BUSKIRK, Applicant,vs.MOCEO E.V. COMPANY; CIGA, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ4559849 (STK 0193026)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION We previously granted applicant’s petition for reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant and her attorney (hereafter “petitioners”) sought reconsideration with regard to the Findings and Order issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 31, 2008, wherein the WCJ denied petitioners a Labor Code section 46071 fee. Previously, the WCJ found, based on the parties’ stipulations that applicant, while employed as a line worker and packer on March 3, 2000, sustained an industrial injury to her left shoulder, neck, back and headaches, causing 23% permanent disability, and a need for further medical treatment. Petitioners contended in the petition for reconsideration that the WCJ erred in denying applicant’s attorney a fee, arguing that the WCJ should have found that they are entitled to a section 4607 fee for successfully enforcing an award of future medical care because defendant denied medical treatment without filing a formal petition to terminate the award of further medical treatment. Petitioners argue that because defendant has informally or “constructively” terminated medical treatment, applicant was left without the ability to obtain medical care and her attorney was forced to expend time to enforce the award of medical treatment. 1Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. , We have reviewed petitioners’ petition for reconsideration and the entire record including the WCJ’s Report. We will now issue our decision on petitioners’ petition for reconsideration. Based on our review and for the reasons stated herein an
