The California Division of Workers’ Compensation has proposed a new, uniform fee schedule for interpreter fees, based on the federal courts. The proposed fee schedule, introduced on April 2, 2018, suggests new billing codes and rates to be used for computing billing for interpreter services. It will be contained in Section 9937 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, under Article 11 for Fees and Requirements for Interpreter Services.
According to the new proposal, services provided by certified interpreters are distinguished from those provided by provisionally certified interpreters. Certified interpreters may bill for a maximum fee of $225.00 per half-day of interpreting and $448.00 for full day services at the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Each additional half-day hearing would warrant a charge of $191.25, while an additional full-day hearing would warrant $336.00.
Provisionally certified interpreters, on the other hand, would be paid a maximum of $141.00 for a half-day of interpreting and $232.00 for a full day. Additional hearings would warrant payment of $105.75 for a half-day of interpreting and $174.00 for a full day in the same time division. The Division of Workers’ Compensation has emphasized the reduction for provisionally certified interpreters as means by which to encourage the use of certified interpreters.
California Code of Regulations section 9795.1.6 provides the definitions of “certified” versus “provisionally certified” interpreters. Certified interpreters must be listed on the State Personnel Board web page or the California Courts website. Alternatively, they may be certified for medical treatment appointments or medical legal exams through additional certification, such as passing the Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters exam or passing the National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters exam.
The Department of Industrial Relations has clarified that provisionally certified interpreters, having been deemed qualified to provide interpreter services, may be utilized when a certified interpreter is not available. This may be done either (A) by agreement of the parties, or (B) based on a finding by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge conducting a hearing that the interpreter is qualified to interpret at the hearing, or by the arbitrator conducting the arbitration that the interpreter is qualified to interpret at the arbitration. The finding of the judge or arbitrator and the basis for the finding must be set forth in the record of proceedings.
These rates would also be applicable to arbitration, Information and Assistance hearings, and depositions. Any disputes regarding the new billing codes and rates would be resolved by independent bill review.
The new proposed rates may provide some much needed clarification to the current regulations, which reference “market rates,” a concept which has often led to ambiguous interpretation. Additionally, the proposal includes more detailed requirements regarding invoice information and billing codes and the credentialing identification for interpreters. New regulations will also mandate that the requesting party maintain detailed accounts of the efforts made to obtain the interpreter.
There has been criticism of the proposal, such as the new one-hour minimum for medical treatment appointments, which would replace the industry standard of a two-hour minimum fee. The reduction may be less appealing to interpreters.
Comments may be made regarding the new proposal through Friday, April 13, 2018. The text of the draft regulations may be accessed through the Department of Industrial Relations website located at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/DWCWCABForum/Interpreter.htm
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided to share knowledge and expertise with our colleagues with the goal that all may benefit. The content of this newsletter is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to serve as legal advice or as a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any particular legal matter. Nothing contained within this newsletter should be used as a substitute for legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Trovillion, Inveiss & Demakis. Legal advice depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual’s situation. You should not rely on this newsletter without first consulting with a qualified, licensed attorney.