INTERPRTER FEE SCHEDULE FORUM COMMENTS · INTERPRTER FEE SCHEDULE FORUM COMMENTS 4 interpreter can be scheduled. (b) The employer shall make efforts to secure a Certified Interpreter

INTERPRTER FEE SCHEDULE FORUM COMMENTS

1

Lorena Barrett – Secretary April 13, 2018

Mariana Benison – President

David Higbee – Board Member

Jesus Rivera –Board Member

Ana Sevilla – Board Member

Association of Independent Judicial Interpreter of California

Board of Directors

The Association of Independent Judicial Interpreters of California (AIJIC) is a nonprofit trade association

that represents the interests of certified and registered independent court interpreters statewide.

We appreciate that your second proposed regulations for interpreters fees keep the provision that allows

interpreters the ability to negotiate payment regardless of the fees that are being proposed, but we'd like

to suggest that the proposal also gives interpreters and agencies the freedom to negotiate all terms and

conditions, such as the duration of half day/full day, which the DWC proposal sets at 3.5 hours and up to

8 hours respectively, something which differs from standard practice in several areas of California.

Another section of the proposal that should be reworded is found under §9930(a), which states that a

certified interpreter for hearings and depositions is an individual listed as a certified interpreter for

administrative hearings, medical examinations, or state court proceedings on the State Personnel Board

website or is listed as a certified interpreter on the California Courts website." The mention of interpreters

certified for medical examinations in this section might be construed as them being allowed to interpret

at hearings and depositions and needs to be clarified, since most likely this is not what the authors of this

proposal intended. Only interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website or on the California

Courts website are allowed to interpret at administrative hearings and depositions for administrative

matters.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Jason Schmelzer April 13, 2018

California Coalition on Workers’ Compensation

California Association of Joint Powers Association

California Chamber of Commerce

Section 9930 Definitions (c) Claims Administrator and (d) Employer: The definitions proposed herein do not reflect all

potential employers and claims administrators. We note that the definitions provided in Title 8, Division


2

1 section 1(i) & (q) are more thorough and accurate and should merely be referenced herein for

consistency, rather than re-inventing the definitions with each proposed regulatory change and chapter.

We also propose that definitions within Title 8, Division 1 section 1, be referenced whenever possible

for consistency.

Section 9931: Selection and Arrangement for presence of Interpreter (b) Hearings: As currently written this section requires that the applicant schedule the interpreter. We

have no concern in that regard, if the applicant is represented. When the applicant is not represented

however, we respectfully suggest that following LC 4600(f) & (g) and requiring that the employer or

claims administrator, who has the resources available to insure an interpreter be present, is required to

schedule the interpreter.

(e) Medical Treatment Appointments: Under the current labor code there is no provision for the

applicant to select their own interpreter. LC 4600 (a) does not include a reference to interpretation

services. LC 4600(f) & (g) states:

(f) “…when the employee submits to an examination by a physician and the employee does

not proficiently speak or understand the English language, he or she shall be entitled to the

services of a qualified interpreter in accordance with the conditions and the fee schedule

prescribed by the administrative director. These services shall be provided by the employer.”

(g) Upon request of the injured employee, the employer or insurance carrier shall pay for

interpreter services. An employer shall not be required to pay for the services of an interpreter

who is not certified or provisionally certified by the person conducting the medical treatment or

examination, unless the employer consents in advance to the selection of the individual who

provides the interpreting services or the injured worker requires interpreting service in a language

other than the languages designated pursuant to Section 11435.40 of the Government Code.”

The proposed regulations create an unsupported vesting of a right on the employee to select the

interpreter, despite the fact that the Labor Code clearly empowers only the employer or insurance carrier

with the interpreter selection and scheduling of the interpreter, upon notice. Additionally, these proposed

regulations will create significant friction and increased costs.

Since this entire paragraph and subparagraphs conflict with LC 4600(f) & (g) we recommend that all of

this section be stricken as written and that the following be considered as replacement language:

Proposed language: (e) For accepted claims and claims under investigation pursuant to Labor Code

Section 5402 interpreters shall be arranged by the employer or claims administrator for all treatment.

(f) In consideration of LC 4600(f) & (g) together with the recommended changes in paragraph (e)

above, this entire paragraph should be deleted.


3

(g) Employer Obligation to Notify Injured Worker of Interpreter Selection: This section limits

the methods of communication. More often than not communication occurs by facsimile, when the

injured worker is represented, except when prohibited. Text is not currently possible. We are not aware

of any current claim system that has the ability to text the injured worker. Email is not always available

as many applicant’s and some of their representatives do not provide email or cell phone information.

Please also note that change of applicant address notification rarely if ever includes information about a

changed phone number. Voice mail can also be problematic as the voice mail box could be full or when

the employee has not yet set-up their voice mail box.

Furthermore, there is no provision for late notifications of an appointment requiring interpreting

services. While we appreciate the DWC’s efforts here, we cannot understand why is there a limit as to

the type of notification.

Proposed Language:

(g) Employer Obligation to Notify Injured Worker of Interpreter Selection: (1) The employer shall notify the injured worker or their representative at least two business days prior

to a medical treatment appointment, when notice of that appointment is timely received. Notice shall be

delivered to the injured worker or his representative in the manner in which the parties have agreed to

communicate.

(2) If the employer receives notice of a medical treatment appointment less than five business days

prior to the appointment, then notice shall be provided to the employee or their representative once an

interpreter has been confirmed in the most expeditious manner possible.

Section 9932: Requirements to Establish that a Certified Interpreter Cannot be Present Labor Code 4600 (f) specifically references a “qualified interpreter” and LC 4600 (g) states that the

interpreter must be “certified or provisionally certified” there is no specific requirement for a certified

interpreter. Again, this language conflicts with the statute.

Requirements for contacting three interpreting service providers to secure a certified interpreter. In

order to be consistent with the Labor Code there should be a provision allowing use of a Qualified

Interpreter. Further, the method of communication here is limited. It is this recommended that the

opening sentence be changed:

Recommendation: Change (a) to permit use of a qualified interpreter. Require all efforts to secure a certified interpreter for

Medical-Legal evaluations(b), hearing and depositions (c).

Proposed Language:

(a) The employer shall make efforts to secure a Qualified Interpreter for a medical treatment

evaluation by contact of at least three interpreter service providers or until a qualified


4

interpreter can be scheduled.

(b) The employer shall make efforts to secure a Certified Interpreter for a Medical-Legal

evaluation by contact of at least three interpreter service providers or until a qualified

interpreter can be scheduled.

(c) The party responsible for scheduling an interpreter at a deposition or a hearing shall make

efforts to secure Certified Interpreter by contact of at least three interpreter service providers

or until a Certified Interpreter can be scheduled.

(b) Service providers must be located within a 60-minute drive time or 30 miles. This requirement will almost never be met. Most interpreting service providers offer services statewide

from a centralized location, contracting with local interpreters. Thus, the location of the service provider

should be an immaterial factor in determining the availability of an interpreter.

(c) Rural area exception permitting the service provider be located within 90 minutes or 45 miles. For

the same reasons as noted above this section makes the provision of services extremely limited.

Recommendation: Strike paragraphs (b & c)

(d) Documentation of Efforts: What is the purpose of this section other than potential audit penalties?

With all the time frames and requirements imposed on a claims staff for providing injured workers

benefits, this certainly appears to be an onerous requirement.

Section 9934(e): Requirements to Perform Interpreting Services at Medical Treatment

Appointments and Medical-Legal Evaluations While it is foreseeable that a Medical-Legal Evaluator, once trained on the requirements of this section

might comply with the reporting requirements herein, we have no reason to believe that the

documentation requirements will be met by a treating physician. If we have learned anything from the

participation in the MTUS education efforts, we have learned that many who have participated were

unaware of the impending changes and many more failed to participate in either the DWC presentations

or our other presentations. Thus, absent a form being provided to the physician by the interpreter, this

documentation is not likely to be forthcoming. Further, as written, the medical treatment provider is

only required to maintain the information in the medical file not report the information.

Section 9936(a): Hearings and Depositions

(4) Cancellation fees are one-half day. Most depositions prep time is an hour or less and many depositions end within two hours, unless there

is a prior agreement to continue the deposition beyond that time. Many hearings last less than the full

half-day. Comparison to the QME late cancellation can be drawn here. QME rate for late cancellation

is often $325-$500, while if the appointment goes forward, billing could well exceed an ML103

reimbursement or more if billed at ML-104 rates. Thus, there is a significant discount for the cancelled

event. In the case of the interpreter fees there is no such reduced rate.


5

Further, notice of cancellation is the responsibility of the responsible party. However, there is no

consequence if the responsible party, the applicant’s representative, does not timely notify the

interpreter. Certainly, if the responsible party is the employer, then payment would be required.

However, if applicant’s representative has scheduled the interpreter and failed to notify them, who is

responsible for the bill. If the employer is required to pay, then the employer should be entitled to a

credit against compensation due, by operation of law or by asserting a claim through notice to the

parties. If a lien is required the employer or their representative should be exempt from the filing fee.

Finally, regarding hearings in contract law, and the hiring of an interpreter is at a minimum a verbal

contract, there is a duty on the party whose services are no longer required to mitigate their damages. It

would then follow that if the interpreter arrived at a Hearing and was able to provide services for another

case then there would be no loss of income and a cancellation fee should not have to be paid. If the

interpreter had multiple hearing scheduled on the same date, then the cancelled appointment should

reimburse the interpreter at the lowest rate, to avoid any unjust enrichment.

Proposed Recommendations:

(4) Cancellations fees: (1) Deposition, Mediation and Arbitration late cancellation: Maximum Reimbursement 3

hours$191.25, absent mitigation of loss declared under penalty of perjury.

(2) Hearing late cancellation: Maximum Reimbursement 3 hours $191.25, Minimum

Reimbursement subject to the cap on fees. If the cap on fees is not met, but the interpreter has

has provided other interpreting services during the same calendar, then the interpreter would

receive the minimum reimbursement of $63.75.

(3) If the late cancellation at the hearing is due to the fault of the applicant or their

representative, then the employer should be entitled to assert a credit against compensation

due.

Section 9937(Fee schedule for Hearings at the WCAB) HDI-1 The general concern here is the allocation for fees associated with more than one appearance. In

Southern California it is quite common for a single interpreter to be scheduled for four or more

appearances during the same half-day. In many instances the injured worker is not present, which would

mean that the interpreter has to do nothing other than sign in, for that appearance(s).

The reimbursement for multiple appearances should have a "cap" and there should be no minimal

allocation in regard to reimbursements where the injured worker did not appear.

There is also concern that if interpreter is present on multiple hearings that this will cause delays when

parties need to wait for the interpreter to be available, which also results in increased legal costs and

delays on the judicial calendar.


6

Recommendations:

HD-1: That the Certified Interpreter reimbursement at a half-day calendar have a cap and a sliding

scale for subsequent appearances in a single half-day calendar as follows:

First appearance: $255.00 Second

Appearance: $191.25 Third

Appearance: $127.50 Fourth

Appearance: $63.75 Fifth

Appearance: $56.00

Cap: $693.50 or $138.70 per appearance, up to five appearances.

Please note that this cap would equate to $173.375 per hour. Late cancellations or no-shows should be

reimbursed at the lowest payment, unless the cap is reached.

HD-2: That the Provisional Interpreter reimbursement at a half-day calendar have a cap and a sliding

scale for subsequent appearances in a single half-day calendar as follows:

First appearance: $141.00 Second

Appearance: $105.75 Third

Appearance: $70.50 Fourth

Appearance: $35.25 Fifth

Appearance: $29.00

Cap: $381.50 or $76.30 per appearance, up to five appearances.

____________________________________________________________________________________

David Higbee, Project Manager April 13, 2018

Trifecta Translations

I was recently able to read the proposed new feed schedule for Workers Comp interpreters, and would

like to comment that that Section 9936 should leave the door open for interpreters and agencies to

negotiate any and all terms and conditions, due to the freelance nature of those business relationships.

Also, there seems to be some confusion in Section 9930 about what interpreters are allowed to interpret

for hearings and depositions. I believe that the law requires interpreters of hearings and depositions to be

certified as an administrative interpreter or as a court interpreters and would like you to clarify that in the

final fee schedule since this will send a precedent in for all interpreters in California and in other states.

____________________________________________________________________________________


7

Sandro Tomasi April 13, 2018

New York State Court Interpreter

How many comments have you received from LEP individuals about how?

Why should medical providers and hearing officers get to decide who is qualified to interpret, when

they're the ones reaching out to the bilingual-language experts? Shouldn't it be an independent

certification/qualification body that can test or quantify someone's expertise in cross-language solutions?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Brian Briscoe April 13, 2018

A flat fee fee schedule for any language is a ridiculous and unfair concept. Would you walk into a

restaurant and expect to pay the same for a slice of toast as you would as you would for a T-bone steak?

Also, this proposal was supposed to satisfy a mandate from SB863. Where does SB863 "mandate" that

the depo transcripts be taken from those of us who run businesses and depend on that income and given

to the insurance companies? That is not an adjustment in pay- it is taking a huge chunk out of our

livelihood.

Also, the agreements we have in place with certain carriers are market rate agreements. Will those be

upheld as such or not- too ambiguous.

Also, asking interpreters to basically submit confidential billing information to an insurance company is

an audit and is illegal.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Maria Placio April 13, 2018

California State Certified Administrative Hearing Reporter

Please see below, my comments regarding the proposed fee schedule and changes to the California Labor

Code.

Re §9936. Computation of Fees:

Interpreters should be entitled to some minimum amount in order to ensure that a particular assignment is

worth their while.


8

The two-hour minimum is an industry wide standard.

Many assignments require an interpreter to travel to the site where services are to be rendered.

Interpreters constantly have to turn down conflicting assignments.

No interpreter will travel over one hour to be paid for only one hour. We all know how easy it is to sit in

California traffic for an hour when the destination is relatively close. Where is the incentive? One hour is

not enough of an incentive for a professional certified interpreter to risk losing a half day wage to accept

a job where they will be paid only one to two hours.

LEP injured workers will lose meaningful language access to workers’ compensation services when

professional interpreters leave the field for greater respect, equal pay and improved working conditions in

this fast-growing industry.

Interpreters are being singled out like no other providers: why are interpreters required to pro-rate their

services? Doctors can see 5 patients in a day, or 10 or 20, as long as they bill at fee schedule.

They can (and many do) have a P/A., to treat patients concurrently, and still bill at the fee schedule for

each appointment. In addition, attorneys at the WCAB do not prorate their fees to different clients.

This is discriminatory.

Re: §9937. Billing Fees and Codes:

These “one size fits all” fees do not work for all languages in all geographical locations.

Why not approach fees based on geographic location and language pair? The information for such a

solution has already been presented to the DWC both in writing and in person on several occasions! The

BRG (Berkeley Research Group, which was contracted by the DIR) carried out a thorough study that

included a compilation of fees charged by interpreters throughout the state. That information is not

included in this proposed fee schedule.

These fees won’t assure an adequate supply of interpreters for languages of lesser diffusion (LLD). Many

of these interpreters receive a small volume of assignments per year and the fees must be higher in order

to ensure availability to the injured worker.

Additionally interpreters often travel long distances to perform services. Many LLD interpreters have

expressed that these proposed fees would drive them out of workers’ compensation and into other

industries with better compensation.

There must be an incentive for a certified interpreter to provide service.


9

The fee listed under MTI-1 will not do it: “$86.50 per hour, with one-hour appointment by a certified

interpreter for medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations.”

Why would an interpreter provide a one-hour service when they could hold out to book a 2-6 hour med-

legal evaluation? We must ensure access to certified interpreters for the injured worker ant this fee will

prohibit availability.

Re: §9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter.

The proposals in this section are problematic because they would make it far too easy for both clients and

language service providers to bypass the quality assurance process. In a nutshell, provisional

certification should be reserved only for those cases where certified interpreters are not available or there

is no avenue for certification. The proposed rules would make it possible to use non-certified interpreters

only when it is inconvenient to use a certified one, and that is too low a standard. It is very important to

note that one of our concerns is that this proposal would incentivize interpreters to not seek certification.

Given the financial incentive to use non-certified interpreters, we are concerned that more assignments

would go to interpreters who do not make the considerable effort required to gain certification.

Re §9936: Translation and review of a deposition is a legal setting. The certified interpreter takes the time

necessary to read and repeat sentences (questions and answers) in the deposition booklet and handwrite

changes, additions, etc. Again, a translation snd review if a deposition booklet is a legal setting.

Re: §9939. Time for Payment; Effective Date

Does this mean that legal bills are subject to the IBR process and not 5811 petitions? Can we still file

5811 Petition for Costs? It is unclear.

Re: §9930. Definitions (e) “Full Day”

It should not say 8 hours. It should be 7 hours because

1) Interpreters require a rest during the workday, not expected to interpret a continuous 4- hour period

during a deposition, a trial or an AME/QME.

2) We need time to travel from morning to afternoon assignments

3) Even Labor Code Commission gives breaks, and

4) A court day is 3.5 hours, not 4.


10

Re: §9934. Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Medical Treatment Appointments and

Medical-Legal Evaluations. ( c )

How will a medical provider, whom is not proficient in the target language, know how to do this?

A medical provider is not an expert in judging if the target language is being interpreted properly and

thoroughly, a certified interpreter is.

____________________________________________________________________________________

S. Margaret Roberts April 13, 2018

CA State Court Certified Interpreter

As a California State and US Court Certified interpreter, I am writing to express my deep concern over

the proposed changes in the Workers Comp Interpreter Fee Schedule. To highlight particular areas of

concern, I direct you to changes in protocol for provisional qualification of non-certified interpreters, and

change to the minimum billable amount for medical appointments.

I have worked both as an independent contractor and as an employee in the California State Superior

Courts for almost 20 years, and have seen the very significant improvements in services to both bench

officers and bar, and court users, to strengthening, rather than weakening certification requirements in the

courts. It cannot be understated that the effect of properly certified interpreters can significantly change

the outcome of criminal, juvenile, family-law, and other high-stakes cases. The use of provisionally

qualified individuals to interpret, as deemed by those who are not language professionals themselves, has

caused serious miscarriage of justice. Access to medical services is similarly high-stakes, and must be

treated with similar rigor, and worker’s rights are a legal matter that compounds the seriousness with

which interpretation in Workers Comp matters should be treated. I strongly recommend against eroding

the quality and accuracy of the interpreting services provided to Workers Compensation injured parties

by making expediency the determining factor in whether a certified interpreter is retained or not. This

refers both to the concession of authority to “qualify” non-certified speakers to non-language

professionals such as bench officers and medical professionals, and the meager bar of three attempts to

secure a certified interpreter before someone without certification by the appropriate body can be

retained.

I also strongly urge that the medical appointment minimum not be reduced to a single hour. This is

absolutely untenable, for professionals to make a living. Given the common length of many of the

appointments interpreters are retained for, and the breadth of duties related to those appointments, as

cited in other comments by those working directly in this field, it is unreasonable to only allow for a 1-

hour minimum. The interpreter, in order to provide full services, in good faith, to the user, must allot an

amount of time that logically corresponds to how long they may end up at the appointment. To then not

be paid for that time, even though they have set it aside, results in double-booking to make ends meet,


11

which does harm to the service user, first and foremost, and does not allow the interpreter the assurance

that he or she will be able to receive adequate compensation by doing other than booking back-to-back 1-

hour appointments and cutting out before the work is finished.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Robert Arroyo April 13, 2018

California Certified Courter Interpreter – Spanish

As to the Use of Provisionally Certified Interpreters for Medical/Legal Appointments under section

9932(a)(3): There are several problems with the proposed practice of using provisionally certified

interpreters in lieu of actual certified interpreters for medical and legal appointments. The certification

process is in place in order to both validate an interpreter’s competence in providing language services as

well as to protect the interests of claimant and insurance company alike.

Certified interpreters go through rigorous training, exams and continuing education programs to be able

to maintain our certification and improve our skills. How can a person such a judge, attorney, doctor (or

much less an adjuster) who doesn't speak the foreign language be qualified to qualify just anybody to

interpret? There are State and National associations that exist for that purpose. Not only will this end the

quality standards and completely undermine the interpreting profession but, most important, this measure

will be a disservice to the injured worker who completely depends on competent interpreters to convey

his concerns, testimony, symptoms and so much more. Neglecting the use of a bona fide certified

interpreter is to risk not only the incorrect communication of injuries, symptoms, and the circumstances

leading to the injury and the subsequent possible misallocation of necessary treatment, which could

signify undue health-related as well as financial consequences, but to also lead to greater costs of further

litigation.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Maria E. Wilson April 13, 2018

Certified Administrative Hearing Interpreter

As I review the proposed changes and updates to the Interpreters fee schedule, it horrifies me to find

there’s a fee schedule specific for “provisionally certified” interpreters. The sole allowance to such

service providers, is a threat to those who continually maintain a level of professionalism that protects

due process to the claims of applicants. For the insurance companies it is one more reason to pay less or

continue to hire individuals who lack sufficient command of both languages.

Someone said the fee schedule for “provisionally certified” refers only to the exotic languages where no

test is available to obtain a certification. If it is so, not only it is not clear enough, nor the fee is sufficient


12

to pay for these languages, where due to the low number of cases, the interpreter’s bill is not covered

even by a third.

I read a comment here about interpreters standing at a board with tens of cases making enormous

amounts of money. I laughed for a while, but then I realized this is unfortunately a wrong and ignorant

general idea. I am one of the interpreters standing at the WCAB Los Angeles, who once thought I could

bill on my own and have the whole fee. Well, it turned out I couldn’t continue to wait to be paid after 3,

4, 5, or more years for an assignment, nor could I continue to enter into a battle to be paid appearing at

court fruitlessly a number of times for each case just to be paid. I had enough paper with illegal

systematic objections from insurance companies, denying payment as an “unapproved medical service”

when what I was billing was clearly an expense of Cost for a court appointment.

At the Board, we do call on several names, many of whom do not appear, many are UTBF which as we

have learned are our pro-bono work since the State of California believes our work is worth nothing; after

years of obtaining our services for free, we do not merit their support in situations we face as a group, as

we do this time.

I then decided I would only be able to work through an agency. I receive today monthly payments from

the agencies that are financing the insurance industry for these services. It is the only way I would be able

to meet my monthly expenses.

I receive less than half of the entire approved fee or much less than in those who bill market rate. The rest

of the fee is used to pay interpreters and staff, to bill and collect and wait to be paid and respond to

objections made even in the cases where an order from the court has been issued to pay the interpreter

fee. I have had situations where I interpret for a trial an entire day only to have the defense attorney

object to my payment at the end of the day. As an independent interpreter, we have no benefits. We are

in charge of paying our own health insurance, retirement, disability, vacations, etc.

This proposed fee schedule is not considering an industry where agencies are imperative to sustain our

industry of service providers.

Also I must add, this schedule is not considering, the acquisitive value of earnings in the different areas

of California. Living in San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, etc., is a very different financial dialog.

We also have the great difficulty to find some interpreters in the rural areas of California, where traveling

to and fro, (not from the agency site but from the interpreter’s residence) is a must be paid consideration.

Additionally considering that a Full day fee is past half day up to 8 hours is outrageous if no time to rest

or breaks is even mentioned.


13

I love my profession. We are communicators, facilitators, mediators, even hostesses for the injured

worker. We facilitate resolutions between disgruntle injured workers and their employers and insurance

companies. There is no room for uncertified or “provisionally certified” “interpreters”.

I go home and feel great having had worked tirelessly all day. WE WORK HARD. If we sit and wait for

hours is only because adjusters take a long time to respond to calls so we can begin to work.

I really hope all this is taken into consideration. I hope you can redesign these fees understanding this

industry. I hope you take the time to understand this industry before you pass a regulation that is in the

end obsolete.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Aileen Walton April 13, 2018

Cantonese Interpreter

I have no intent to sound facetious, but after reviewing the proposed fees and regulations, and

considering the high cost of living in San Francisco where I reside and serve the injured workers, it is

more feasible for me to drive Uber than to accept these changes. If I am going to drive around town, on

average one hour to and from each appointment, and pay for gas, wear and tear on my car, insurance,

parking etc. and only be guaranteed a one hour minimum at a ridiculous rate, less the cut from the

agencies who procure work for me, with no mileage reimbursed, I would be better off driving Uber

where I can earn money at leisure and control my own time. I will let go of pride, let go of the years of

dedication and education towards this interpreting profession, give up the fulfillment of helping

disadvantaged injured workers, and look strictly at numbers and survival in a merciless city with

notorious high rent, risk of eviction, increasingly bad traffic... If any interpreter is so desperate and

unsound as to accept the fee of $55/hr treatment with only 1 hour minimum, I can assure you that when a

more alluring offer comes around, one that pays a standard 2 hour, 4 hour, even 6 hour minimum at

market rate, he will cancel this appointment, and leave everybody scrambling for a subpar interpreter at

best. At the very least, he will pile on appointments after the 1 hour, and be forced to leave the injured

worker stranded without an interpreter, waiting for the doctor to be on time.

I urge you to reconsider this fee schedule and take into account the cost of living differentials between

different parts of the State, urban vs. rural, No. CA vs So. CA. Also take into account the volume of work

for Spanish interpreters and non-Spanish interpreters. There is a reason for the current difference in

hourly rate between Spanish and non-Spanish interpreters- volume of work, differences in interpreting

complexities between Spanish/English and "exotic" languages/English, etc. I am not arguing about

language superiority or endorsing discrimination towards any language group, merely pointing out pure

supply and demand, which the market and market rate naturally reflects. Unless the DWC plans on

employing experts in the field of economics pertaining to our specific profession and arena, who will

regularly monitor and update the fees for each language group, in each specific locale, and make yearly

adjustments for rising cost of living, this current model is best left alone.


14

____________________________________________________________________________________

Laura Dixon April 13, 2018

May name is Laura Dixon. I am a state certified interpreter with more than 26 years in the Workers’

Compensation field as well as other areas of the law.

In response the interpreting fee schedule and regulations being proposed, they seem to have been

conjured by people who have no real experience as to what goes on into the work of a Certified

Interpreter.

Work at the WCAB board start at 8:30 a.m. till 12:00 and from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00, and the job is not done

till the applicant for whom we are translating is sent home, more often than not til1 12:00 and 5:00. So

no matter how long we have translated for the applicant we have spent long hours in the procedure of the

applicant, we have spent long hours in the procedure of the applicant, communicating with attorneys,

judges or information officers.

Therefore, how long I spend actually translating to the applicant or waiting for all the procedures to take

place is irrelevant and I should be compensated for all the time I spend doing so.

I would also like to add there is no reason for provisional interpreters, another name for those who are not

sufficiently competent to pass the state test, to be certified and therefore do the job required at all these

legal and medical procedures.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Isis Bolanos Rivera April 13, 2018

Santana, Lopez & Associates, LLC.

I first want to acknowledge your efforts to hear the concerns of the interpreting community. It is clear

from your proposal that you heard our concerns over non- certified individuals working in our industry.

While I do not feel this proposal did enough to ensure that non-certified individuals do not replace

certified interpreters, I acknowledge it is a step in the right direction.

Overall, I do not see that carriers are being held accountable for non-compliance of the regulations. If

there are no penalties for carriers who systematically abuse the regulations, there is no incentive for them

to be in compliance. It is a matter of implementing a checks and balances mechanism. I see you have

attempted to do this for Interpreting Service Providers (ISPs) and not for carriers.


15

Travel time and mileage must be addressed in the fee schedule if we are to ensure language access to the

injured worker. The current rate of reimbursement is grossly inadequate. I believe there is a way to

implement checks and balances while still providing incentive for qualified, professional interpreters to

travel and provide essential services. For example, as adjusters will be required to document their

attempts to obtain a certified interpreter, ISP’s should also document their attempts to obtain a certified

interpreter within the same geographic region.

It is important that you keep in mind that interpreters have absolutely NO background information on a

case when they provide services. When an interpreter provides services they have to trust that the medical

provider has complied with all regulations and have authorization to provide treatment. The Applicant’s

Attorney may use a non-MPN doctor to obtain a medical report as a strategy. These reports are

admissible and are used to prove or disprove the claim. The interpreter has no way of knowing any of this

information in advance. It is unfair to make interpreter risk non-payment in an outcome where we have

absolutely no control over. Interpreters are essential services that are required to prove or disprove the

claim and should be paid regardless of outcome, even in denied claims.

In regards to fees: while the fees proposed for legal services are similar to what I currently charge in

Ventura County, I think it is a mistake to implement a single fee for all geographic regions. The reality is

that if workers’ compensation is to retain certified professional interpreters, we must acknowledge that

different markets exist and tailor our fee schedule to the current situation.

If you uniformly cut fees for every certified interpreter in an area like San Francisco, you essentially

shoot yourself in the foot because there will be no one to interpret at hearings and depositions. In my

experience, the areas that surround San Francisco have a shortage of interpreters and interpreters must

travel long distances to provide services. Perhaps an increased travel time reimbursement rate would

justify a lower hourly rate.

I am opposed to the proposed regulation for prorating Hearings at the WCAB. This is just not practical

from an operational point and will lead to billing disputes and litigation. For example, if I have 3

hearings on schedule, I will arrive at my first hearing, state on the record that I have three hearings and

sign in. Fine. Then I leave the courtroom and go to my next case and applicant attorney then apologized

they forgot to cancel my services the hearing was taken off calendar. Now I have two hearings and my

billing will not match the hearing record. The amount of my bill will be disputed and I will ultimately file

a cost petition and end up back at the WCAB to resolve the issue. This seems like a lot of work for me,

the insurance company and for the WCAB. Definitely not worth the very small $63.75 savings. It will

cost all parties much more than that amount to resolve all the issues the proration will create.

Languages of Lesser Diffusion (LLD) should have a separate fee schedule all together. If you hold them

to the proposed fees, there will be no professional interpreters to provide services to injured workers. We

would need to define Languages of Lesser Diffusion as any language other than Spanish. I oppose the use


16

of provisionally certified interpreters in any language where certification is available and believe that

having these individuals at a lower rate incentivizes the use of them as a cost savings for the carrier.

I appreciate you consideration and efforts to find a resolution to this very complex issue.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Gilbert Calhoun, General Manager April 13, 2018

Christina Arana & Associates, Inc.

All Language Interpreting Service

While I commend the DWC on the effort put forth to create a new Interpreter Fee Schedule as mandated

by the passage of SB 863 in 2012 and effective 1/1/2013, there are many, many problems with the

schedule as currently proposed. There is still much more work to be done. Interestingly, almost all of

the recommendations of the report by the Berkley Research Group have been ignored.

One of the stated objectives of the new fee schedule was “to encourage use of certified interpreters”, yet

in several sections, the use of non-certified, qualified or provisionally certified interpreters is allowed

after just three attempts to procure a certified interpreter for the various settings. We have already

evidenced a pervasive use of non-certified or unqualified interpreters by large out-of state providers,

insurance companies and TPAs, even when certified interpreters are available or even present at many

settings. This can only be because those interpreters are less expensive. How or why would the fee

schedule encourage this to the detriment of the injured worker?

Importantly, there is no definition of what qualified means leaving it to subjective interpretation based

largely on expediency. Certified interpreters must go through training, rigorous testing and continuing

education to maintain their skills. Also, certified interpreters are bound to a Code of Ethics that

provisionally certified, qualified or non-certified interpreters are not, a serious cause for alarm.

Because the fee schedule fails to consider market forces in creating what appears to be an arbitrary rate

structure, it further impedes the use of certified interpreters in workers’ compensation. Certified

interpreters will decline jobs in workers’ compensation cases because they cannot earn what is paid in the

private sector or other venues. Granted, the proposed fee schedule is pegged at rates above what is

offered in the Superior Court, but most of those jobs come with a benefit package that far exceeds what is

offered here. Some years ago the Judicial Council held a hearing to listen to the voices of Court certified

independent contractor interpreters. In that session one of the unifying comments coming from the group

present was that regardless of the language(s) they spoke, they could earn two to three times more in the

private sector than what was offered to them in Superior Court.

Twenty-five years ago, the DWC wascharged with creating an Interpreter Fee Schedule. Former

Administrative Director Richard P. Gannon put together a team that held workshops with stakeholders

and public hearings. I was a participant. The outcome of that was Article 5.7 Fees for Interpreter


17

Services, commonly referred to as 9795.3, that essentially created the market rate principle and standard

we have used since 1994, amended in 1997. By and large it works. Market Rate is based on sound

economic and business factors, such as supply and demand. Now, to make an analogy, we have prepared

Sunday dinner, set the table, and then tip over the dinner table. Why? Supposedly, it’s for cost

efficiency, but where is the efficiency if it results in poorer communications with injured workers leading

to more litigation, medical treatment, and longer return-to-work periods? Further, to force all interpreters

regardless of language to work for the same rates in unrealistic. When you have seven certified Tagalog

interpreters, in the whole state, only two in Southern California, you cannot expect them to work for the

same rates as Spanish interpreters. This applies to all the certified languages listed in the fee schedule.

Section 9937 includes a pro-rating factor for multiple appearances, without clarifying that it is in the

same location or venue. While the rates for the most part are not relevant to what the market demands,

this is further complicated by the reduction for multiples. This is discriminatory. What other profession

in workers’ compensation is held to this restriction? Neither defense attorneys, doctors nor hearing

representatives are held to this restriction. Why are interpreters being singled out? Is it truly because as

some have commented, interpreters are signing in on 10 or more cases at the WCAB in the same

session? That to me sounds ridiculous, and I have been in this business almost 33 years. Their service

and that of the Language Service Providers (LSPs) or Interpreter Service Providers (ISPs) is invaluable to

the system, and this fee schedule minimizes their importance

It appears that the DWC now wishes to destroy the independent, small businesses and independent

contractors that have helped the system work for many, many years. Section 9931 Selection and

Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter limits the independent interpreter or ISP to only WCAB hearings

or services for which payment may be denied. Unless an interpreter or ISP is an ancillary service

provider for the insurance company or TPA, there will be almost no business to schedule. This will

strangle interpreting services and is inefficient, especially as it relates to deposition readings.

This is complicated by the fact that HDI–9 allots only a one-hour payment, $56.00 for the service. While

$56.00 an hour seems like a high rate, it will not be worth the time or trouble to travel to an assignment,

pay parking and mileage, often $20.00 or more in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, to do a single

reading. It seems to be based on the assumption that the typical interpreter or ISP schedules more than

one reading at a location in the same session. This is not necessarily typical. What if only one reading is

scheduled? I don’t know of one interpreter or ISP that will schedule it for $56.00. More realistic would

be a flat rate based on market rates in a geographic area.

There are many details that I would like to comment on, but space and time prevent it. Others hopefully

have given detailed comments on the serious shortcoming of this proposed fee schedule. Our comments

deserve your serious consideration.


18

____________________________________________________________________________________

Ernesto Morales April 13, 2018

California Certified Interpreter

As a certified interpreter in California I'm very concerned about these "new" changes proposed for

Interpreting fees in Workman's Compensation cases.

In my opinion they are TOTALLY unfair and no Professional Interpreter could sustain a decent living

with such proposal. I had read the many new regulations and fees and I find them offensive to the

profession, some of them border line unconstitutional and illegal.

Hoe do you expect a Dr. to be qualified to make the determination about how qualified is an interpreter to

do the translation for one of his patients (if he doesn't speak the target language), Additionally, he's to

busy with his own paperwork and the medical exam to take time to make a honest and complete

evaluation of the interpreter's skills. This also opens the door to bias opinions or decisions (what a bout if

the Dr is a womanizer and a male and a female interpreter shows up ....who do you think the Dr, will

choose?)

Another part of the proposed changes that is totally unfair, the use of defense attorney's interpreter for the

Deposition Preparation, never the applicant attorney's will accept that interpreter, there is a lot of

privileged information (client/attorney) is shared at the prep. and this could bring issued of

confidentiality. In many cases the interpreter could obtain information from the applicant and share it

with defense attorney, just because he or she is the person who is paying the bill. The preparation date, if

done a few min prior to the deposition could be fatal on the concentration and ability of the deponent to

give an accurate and precise testimony. Which could increase the number of people that, with out

knowing, could get into a shady area of perjury.

Reducing the HR for a full day, no reimbursement of mileage when the interpreter has to go out of his

area, is another issue that would have serious repercussions on the interpreter's income,

Under 9930..the word "Consultation" should be included so the term should read: Medical-Legal

Evaluation & Consultation. Some Dr don't include that word and the Insurance Co, find that a GOOD

reason to NOT pay the interpreter.

I could go on for hours, but I plead to have these proposals review and have a panel of interpreters

present and included in such revisions.

____________________________________________________________________________________


19

Claudia Calvo April 13, 2018

Spanish Language Interpreter

Judicial Council of California Certified

I am reaching out because I am concerned about 2 key factors in the proposed Fee Schedule, namely,

subsection 9936, Computation of Feed (d).

As professionals we are free to negotiate fees as well as the duration of half and full days. It is common

in many areas for a half day to not exceed 3 hours and a full day to not exceed 6. I am opposed to this

subsection defining half and full days as it currently does and the text needs to make it explicitly clear

that all terms and conditions are subject to negotiation. Further, I'm concerned about subsection 9930(a)

because the way it reads currently may be misinterpreted by dishonest people trying to find any loophole

to save money. It should be made clear that Medically certified interpreters are NOT qualified to interpret

at depositions or legal proceedings , since they have been educated and trained in a completely different

skill set.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rosa L. Ocana, Chief Financial Officer April 13, 2018

Medrano Interpreting

I am totally opposed to the new fee schedule.

The proposed billing amendments would create a paperwork nightmare.

Adjusters would have the responsibility of making sure all billing requirements are met. It would add

more work to their billing review.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Pamela Fitz Lawrence April 13, 2018

I am a Certified Medical Interpreter in Sonoma County, California. I believe that the rate for CMIs

should be $75/hour with a 2/hour minimum. Said fee should increase yearly above the percentage of

inflation.

Health Care should be made available in a reasonable manner and cost. I am 64 years old and my

monthly health care payment is above $800. On top of that amount I have co-pays for appointments and

medication. Very expensive.


20

My third idea is that all interpreters should be wearing their badge. It shows a color picture of the

interpreter, full name,target language, Certification Number and Expiration as well as the seal of the

certifying board. I have seen qualified interpreters covering QMEs when they have no qualification to do

so.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Shulamit Linda Rosner April 13, 2018


I strongly object to the new proposals concerning the regulating of our profession. I have been an

interpreter since 1977. I am highly trained and participate in yearly continuing education to keep my

skills at the highest possible level. Of course, that costs money.

If these regulation are activated, you will price seasoned and educated interpreters out of the marketplace

and will end up with uncertified, inaccurate imposters.

I implore your to listen to us, and our organization, and throw out these new regulations.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alfredo Sweeny April 13, 2018

Court Certified Spanish Interpreter

I just wanted to write and ask that you take these two points into consideration of the new proposed fees:

1. §9936. Computation of Fees (d) needs to specifically give interpreters and agencies the possibility

of negotiating all terms and conditions, not just payment, such as the duration of half day/full day,

which the DWC proposal sets at 3.5 hours and up to 8 hours respectively, and which differs from

standard practice in several areas of California.

2. §9930(a) (Definitions, “Certified interpreter for hearings and depositions”) needs to specify that only

interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website or on the California Courts website are allowed

to interpret at administrative hearings and depositions.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Maria Palacio April 13, 2018

California State-Certified Administrative Hearing Interpreter


21

Please see below, my comments regarding the proposed fee schedule and changes to the California Labor

Code.

Re §9936. Computation of Fees:

Interpreters should be entitled to some minimum amount in order to ensure that a particular assignment is

worth their while.

The two-hour minimum is an industry wide standard. Many assignments require an interpreter to travel to

the site where services are to be rendered. Interpreters constantly have to turn down conflicting

assignments. No interpreter will travel over one hour to be paid for only one hour. We all know how easy

it is to sit in California traffic for an hour when the destination is relatively close. Where is the incentive?

One hour is not enough of an incentive for a professional certified interpreter to risk losing a half day

wage to accept a job where they will be paid only one to two hours. LEP injured workers will lose

meaningful language access to workers’ compensation services when professional interpreters leave the

field for greater respect, equal pay and improved working conditions in this fast-growing industry.



They can (and many do) have a P/A., to treat patients concurrently, and still bill at the fee schedule for

each appointment. In addition, attorneys at the WCAB do not prorate their fees to different clients.


Re: §9937. Billing Fees and Codes:

These “one size fits all” fees do not work for all languages in all geographical locations.


solution has already been presented to the DWC both in writing and in person on several occasions! The

BRG (Berkeley Research Group, which was contracted by the DIR) carried out a thorough study that

included a compilation of fees charged by interpreters throughout the state. That information is not

included in this proposed fee schedule.

These fees won’t assure an adequate supply of interpreters for languages of lesser diffusion (LLD). Many

of these interpreters receive a small volume of assignments per year and the fees must be higher in order

to ensure availability to the injured worker. Additionally interpreters often travel long distances to

perform services. Many LLD interpreters have expressed that these proposed fees would drive them out

of workers’ compensation and into other industries with better compensation.There must be an incentive

for a certified interpreter to provide service. The fee listed under MTI-1 will not do it: “$86.50 per hour,

with one-hour appointment by a certified interpreter for medical treatment appointments and medical-

legal evaluations.” Why would an interpreter provide a one-hour service when they could hold out to

book a 2-6 hour med-legal evaluation? We must ensure access to certified interpreters for the injured

worker ant this fee will prohibit availability.


22

Re: §9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter.

The proposals in this section are problematic because they would make it far too easy for both clients and

language service providers to bypass the quality assurance process. In a nutshell, provisional

certification should be reserved only for those cases where certified interpreters are not available or there

is no avenue for certification. The proposed rules would make it possible to use non-certified interpreters

only when it is inconvenient to use a certified one, and that is too low a standard. It is very important to

note that one of our concerns is that this proposal would incentivize interpreters to not seek certification.

Given the financial incentive to use non-certified interpreters, we are concerned that more assignments

would go to interpreters who do not make the considerable effort required to gain certification.

Re §9936: Translation and review of a deposition is a legal setting. The certified interpreter takes the time

necessary to read and repeat sentences (questions and answers) in the deposition booklet and handwrite

changes, additions, etc. Again, a translation and review if a deposition booklet is a legal setting.

Re: §9939. Time for Payment; Effective Date

Does this mean that legal bills are subject to the IBR process and not 5811 petitions? Can we still file

5811 Petition for Costs? It is unclear.

Re: §9930. Definitions (e) “Full Day”

It should not say 8 hours. It should be 7 hours because

1) Interpreters require a rest during the workday, not expected to interpret a continuous 4- hour period

during a deposition, a trial or an AME/QME.

2) We need time to travel from morning to afternoon assignments

3) Even Labor Code Commission gives breaks, and

4) A court day is 3.5 hours, not 4.

Re: §9934. Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Medical Treatment Appointments and

Medical-Legal Evaluations. ( c )

How will a medical provider, whom is not proficient in the target language, know how to do this?

A medical provider is not an expert in judging if the target language is being interpreted properly and

thoroughly, a certified interpreter is.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Robert A. Duran April 13, 2018


23

In trying to make sense of the proposed Interpreter Fee Schedule I found that the numbers are at least

very baffling.

When 9795.3 was enacted the "minimum" fee was $90.00 for a two-hour minimum and prorated at

$11.25 per quarter hour. The proposed fee is $52.50 per hour with a two hour hour maximum provided

that the interpreter can prove it took longer than an hour to complete the assignment totaling $105.00.

Now not being a math genius that equates to a $15.00 increase over the last 24 years OR sixty-three cents

per year. How many of you on the board have received a $15.00 raise over the last 24 years? Op's I

forgot, you are all political appointees so you don't need to worry about trivial things like trying to

survive on a sixty-three cents per hour increase

The real question we all have is, where or how did you derive these numbers? Was there a study done?

(Oh wait a minute, I remember sitting, along with several colleagues, with the Berkeley Research Group

(BRG) several years ago and if memory serves me right they came up with a fee of $120.00 per hour

MINIMUM for interpreters. But apparently that study that cost the state over $1,000,000.00 was

apparently cast aside). But back to your numbers, what research went into the process? Were interpreters

invited to sit at the table when you came up with these numbers or was it a closed door and need to know

process? Who did sit at the table? where is the data? Can we see it? Who provided the data, insurance

companies? TRANSPARENCY, where's the TRANSPARENCY??

I know the many of my colleagues are all wondering what to do. With the way the proposed regulation is

written certification is almost meaningless. All the power to select an interpreter has been giving to the

defense/carriers. The carriers position is how to save money and using non certified interpreters is the

best route. You write that they must show that they tried to find a certified interpreter. Show who? The

DIR? What teeth is there in the regulation that would force them to show their efforts to find a certified

interpreter? We all know that with their Ancillary Networks that they have contracted with large out of

state companies like ONE-CALL for interpenetrating services but they too can go their merry way with

out having to prove that the make efforts to find certified interpreter.

This is proposed fee schedule reads like a chapter in Dr Seuss' Cat in the Hat. Please go back to the

drawing board and really do a comprehensive study with both sides at the table.

The end result with this proposal is that you are going to drive highly educated and qualified interpreters

out of the system and the only thing left will be the bottom feeders like the large out of state contractors.

My last word is DRACONIAN!

____________________________________________________________________________________


24

Ttzol Lopez April 13, 2018

Certified Healthcare Interpreter

I am a certified healthcare interpreter working independently in the northern California area and I would

like to express several concerns regarding the new regulations recommended:

1. Wording and definitions in the documents make easy for language access agencies to hire services

of interpreters and ad-hoc interpreters who might not be the most qualified person to perform

services.

2. Use of certified court interpreter, provisionally court interpreter, certified medical-legal interpreter,

provisionally medical-legal interpreter and qualified medical interpreter might be a better option of

wording to prevent third parties to find loop holes in regulations.

3. I do not agree with the proposed fees, it seems to me that our profession (interpretation) has been

having a decrease on fees throughout the years instead of an increase. Is DIR considering the

variations of cost of living throughout California? Every year our profession is more demanding

regarding our qualifications and our professionalism. I believe it is not too much to expect a

compensation accordingly. Fees are too low across the board, for certified and non-certified

interpreters.

Interpreters should be paid in full for time booked, not only for a portion of it.

Medical evaluations should be paid at least three hour minimum for half day, and full day should

be 6 hours or more. Additional time should be paid in increments of at least 30 minutes. Any time

after 8 hours of work should be paid as overtime as any other job

Interpreter minimum charge for medical appointments shouldn’t be less than two hours. Even that

some appointments take less than one hour, the waiting factor should play role. Also, if one hour

minimum stays it is a risk interpreters have to go to the next appointment.

Pro-rate of services shouldn’t exist.

Mileage from first mile.

Parking reimbursement.

Cancellations inside 24 hours should be paid in full for booked time.

4. A clear definition of whom should receive the fees established is not only necessary but required,

the end services providers (interpreters) are receiving only a portion of the fees in the schedule;

third parties involved should negotiate all terms and conditions taking this in consideration. I would

like the fees on the schedule to go directly to the interpreter that’s only fair.


25

5. Participation of interpreters –at least a representation- of every field during discussion of

establishment of fees will be a good way to know firsthand the work environment and issues

interpreters have to face on every day basis to perform their jobs in a professional manner.

6. Definitions of the area of service of each type of interpreter have to be detailed. I understand a big

concern for all of us who work in this field is to find solutions to existing problems, and we have

to work together thinking about what is the ideal but being realistic at the same time. It is the ideal

all interpreters provide service in the area of expertise; but it is real that many times the way the

system works does not facilitate such effort. It might be better to define the minimum skills an

interpreter have to have to be considered as “provisionally”____ interpreter.

I hope the points expressed by all people submitting comments including myself are considered before a

final decision is taken.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Hsiaotung (aka) Angela April 13, 2018


May I humbly request that you address the two points previously mentioned, namely:








Thank you for your thorough consideration.

____________________________________________________________________________________

H. Raul Beguiristain, PhD April 13, 2018

Certified Medical Interpreter


26

• It seeks mainly to limit the earning potential of interpreter service providers and interpreters, which in

turn will limit the availability of certified interpreter to limited English proficient (LEP) injured workers.

This is biased, discriminatory and prejudiced. If a fee schedule should be implemented it shall be

implemented for EVERY POSITION / PROFESSION in the WCAB system independent or not. On top

of this, by imposing a fee schedule the State of California is acting as an employer and is not proposing

due benefits to the interpreting community such as health care, WC insurance, vacation, retirement and

the like. The State of California should pay for all of these benefits!

• It waters down the requirements to provide LEP injured workers with professional interpreters and

meaningful language access, a civil right afforded by Title VI. Thereby, California minority communities

are going to be subjected to discrimination and prejudice.

• It opens the state up to civil rights lawsuits like Lau v. Nichols 414 US 563 (1974)

• It will require more paperwork, more jumping through hoops, more policing by judges, attorneys,

medical providers and employers, claims administrators, interpreters and interpreter service providers.

Therefore the fee schedule grossly underpays interpreters and agencies.

• It will lead to more litigation and more payment disputes.

• It threatens to drive out professional interpreters from the workers’ compensation system.

• While it can be agreed upon that in busy treatment medical facilities a one-hour minimum might be a

reasonable standard, the one hour minimum sections leave out the words “and location” at the end of

“during same time slot” as recommended by the Berkeley Research Group (BRG) report. One-hour

minimums for treatment appointments in offices where medical providers do not service

a lot of workers’ compensation cases will lead certified interpreters to decline said appointments,

allowing for “provisionally” certified interpreters as defined in this proposal to benefit the most, to the

detriment of the LEP injured worker.

• Allowing monolingual medical providers, hearing officers and adjusters to determine who has sufficient

skill to be deemed “provisionally” certified defies logic.

• Pro-rating interpreter services is unfair to interpreters in isolated, rural areas and small Appeals Boards.

Interpreters are at the mercy of court calendars and medical provider schedules. Interpreters do not make

their own schedules and should thus not be penalized when working harder in the same time period.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Jesus Rivera April 13, 2018


27

Certified Interpreter/Translator

Thank you for publishing the Proposed Interpreter Fee Schedule Regulations and providing interpreters

the opportunity to express our concerns.

I am writing to you as an independent-contract interpreter and member of the board of the Association of

Independent Judicial Court Interpreters of California.

One section that concerns me is the wording in section 9930(a) on the Definition of a certified interpreter

for hearings and depositions. After reading the section several times I was left with the impression that

interpreters certified for administrative hearings, medical examinations or state court proceedings are

deemed equally "certified for hearings and depositions," as stated at the beginning of subsection (a).

This may leave the mistaken impression that interpreters certified for medical examinations are also

certified for depositions or civil court proceedings, when they're not.

I believe clarity may be achieved by separating the classifications for medical, administrative and court

proceedings, and stating the type of procedure each classification is allowed to interpret, instead of

grouping them all as "certified."

I offer the following as a suggestion to be considered:

"Certified interpreter for medical examinations or hearings" is an individual listed on the State Personnel

Board website [http.--], and "certified interpreter for court proceedings" is an individual listed on the

California Courts website at [http...], both in one of the following languages: Spanish, Tagalog, Arabic,

Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Vietnamese, American Sign Language, Eastern Armenian,

Western Armenian, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Punjabi, or Russian, or other languages authorized or

designated pursuant to Government Code sections 11435.40, 11435.35, and 68562. Certified court

interpreters are authorized to interpret medical examinations, workers' comp depositions and all civil

state court matters.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to contribute our comments. I hope you take our comments into

consideration when preparing the final draft of this important set of rules.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Peggy Sugarman, Workers’ Compensation Director April 13, 2018

Department of Human Resources

City and County of San Francisco

http://www.--/


28

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Interpreter Regulations. As a self-insured

member of CWCI, the City & County of San Francisco supports all of the proposals contained in that

document.

In addition, I have the following comments:

Section 9930(h): Recommend adding: “Hearing officer is the individual designated to conduct

or preside at a hearing. The hearing officer may be a Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge,

mediator, or arbitrator.

Section 9731(f): Recommend replacing the word “agent, if represented” and substituting

“attorney, if represented”.

Section 9732(d): The requirement to keep a detailed written record of attempts to identify an

interpreter service provider is burdensome and unlikely to help achieve the goal of finding a qualified

interpreter. We are not opposed to keeping a record of the attempts, but the addition of dates, times,

email addresses, is overly complicated and unnecessary. What is needed is a good faith attempt to

provide the necessary services. We recommend that each party simply keep a record of:

1. The names of the service providers contacted;

2. The dates of contact

3. The reason(s) why the effort was unsuccessful.

There should also be some clarification as to how that record is to be kept and when and to whom they

are to be provided. Ideally, attempts provided by a claims adjuster may simply record the efforts in the

Claim Notes section of the claims file, which could be compiled upon request of a judge or opposing

party under penalty of perjury. Attorney firms, whether applicant or defense, could track in a similar

way.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Tania England April 13, 2018

Court Certified Interpreter

9930. The proposed fee schedule and regulations fails to consider a necessary and valuable entity in the

Worker’s Compensation System, a Language Service provider (LSP). These entities are in charge of

scheduling, confirming and securing an interpreter for a particular assignment as well as billing,


29

collecting and paying the interpreter for services provided. They make sure depositions, hearings and

medical appointments have an interpreter present if needed and that the interpreter is certified or

qualified. They must be included in the definitions.

(e) A full day should be 7 hours since hearings at the WCAB start at 8:30am -12:00pm and 1:30pm-

5:00pm which follows the state employees’ hours.

(f) (2) A half day outside the WCAB hearings (for example but not limited to Depositions) should be 3

hours to allow the interpreters to schedule a morning and an afternoon job with sufficient time to eat and

drive from one assignment to another. Otherwise it makes it very difficult to earn a living working only

half days. This is especially true since depositions are usually scheduled at 10:00am and 2:00pm.

9931 & 9936 (c)(2) The injured worker (IW) or if represented, his/her attorney shall select and arrange

the preparation of the deponent and the translation of the deposition transcript. This is important because

the IW is not familiar with the process and the importance of a deposition under penalty of perjury and

his/her attorney should have the right to select an interpreter he/she feels comfortable with to help the IW

digest all the information given. Many times this preparation takes place before the actual deposition so

that the IW can refresh his/her recollection of the events and be truly prepared to offer his/her testimony.

In regards to the translation (not reading as the current proposal states) of the deposition transcript, this is

the last opportunity for the IW to change or confirm his/her testimony and in my experience, it can be as

taxing or more than the actual interpretation during the deposition. Sight translations when done right

takes a whole different set of skills as interpreting, and there are mistakes or nuances of the language that

need to be corrected which sometimes are not the fault of the IW. This job can’t be done in an hour for

the fee suggested in this proposal ($56 for the LSP). It should be paid as a half day. Also because of the

same reason mentioned above regarding the 3.5 hours, an interpreter could not schedule enough

deposition reviews in one day to make a living.

(f) If the injure worker is responsible for selecting the interpreter (Shouldn’t it be his/her attorney if

represented?). Why does his/her agent need to notify the employer of this selection so that the employer

has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter? This does not make much sense, it is a

waste of time and resources. A more efficient way would be if the IW (or his/her attorney) schedules the

interpreter needed with a LSP who can contact, schedule and confirm an interpreter. This is the way it has

worked so far and there is no reason to complicate this system even more.

9933 (e) A hearing officer is not a Language Expert in order to determine if a prospective interpreter has

sufficient skill. Hearings and trials are an essential part of the Worker’s Compensation process and

accuracy is of paramount importance. We would be doing a disservice to the IW if we leave this in the

hands of incompetent individuals.

(f)It is discriminatory to the interpreters to have them state on the record the number of interpretations

done during the same period or the numbers he/she is scheduled to complete. First because attorneys,

x-apple-data-detectors://0/






30

doctors and other services providers are not subject to this rule and second because it infringes with the

interpreter’s right to have the ability to work as hard as one wants to work. Also, interpreting assignments

change daily, sometimes there are last minute add-ons or cancelations which would certainty cause

mistakes and inaccuracies while trying to state the number of interpretations under oath.

9934( c) A medical provider is also not qualified to determine if a provisionally certified interpreter has

sufficient skill to interpret. Medical terminology is very specialized and should not be taken lightly. Can

we provisionally certified someone to be a doctor or an attorney so we can save some time and money?

(e) Same as before. Interpreters should not have to inform the medical provider if this is the first or

subsequent interpretation during the same period, this is discriminatory and should be excluded from this

proposal.

9936 (b) (3) Medical appointments last more than an hour, there is always a wait time, especially if the

doctor is running behind. So an hour minimum is not realistic and it would create problems if some

appointments run into another. Medical-legal evaluations in my experience take at least 4 hours so

scheduling only 2 is also not realistic.

(l) Fees should not be pro rated for services done during the same period. It makes more sense if there is

a flat fee per serviced provided. Many times an interpreter is working for different LSP during the same

period, so how can the interpreter decide which LSP gets to bill for the first hearing?

9937 HDI-1 Fees for depositions should be higher than the proposed fees, since an interpreter can’t

schedule another job during the same time period. Let’s not forget that interpreters depend on LSP for

their work and to be paid timely and LSP companies don’t work for free. The fees as they are stated are

not going directly to the interpreters, they go through the LSP first. For WCAB hearings a flat fee works

better, some WCAB judges in Southern California currently approve $165- $185 per hearing which is

reasonable in my opinion. Perhaps trials could be billed at a higher rate.

9938( a) (10) I don’t understand what is the purpose of stating the number of interpretations done during

the same period, except that it is discriminatory against interpreters and infringes on the interpreter’s

right to free market themselves. Interpreters are officers of the court who shouldn’t be subjected to this

scrutiny on a daily basis.

(12)As I mentioned earlier, LSP are the entities responsible for billing and collecting. Interpreters are not

involved in that part of the process. Most of us are independent contractors (with no benefits) who have

never set foot in the LSP offices. We are unaware of their billing practices and would not be comfortable

signing under penalty of perjury that the information the LSP has included on each bill is correct.

____________________________________________________________________________________


31

Jonathan Shafer April 13, 2018

My name is Jonathan Paul Shafer and I reside in Redding, CA. I am an active certified medical

interpreter, certified through the National Board, and interpreter for medical treatment appointments

across Northern California on a daily basis.

I am excited to see changes to the regulations that call for strict use of certified interpreters at medical

treatment and med-legal appointments, when available. Claims examiners and carriers are abusing the

current language in the regulation daily, and only authorizing non-certified interpreters 95% of the time at

medical treatment appointments. This is extremely frustrating and infuriating, because the injured worker

should have the ability to properly communicate with his or her medical provider with the assistance of

someone who is highly trained in linguistics and in the case of medical appointments, the medical

terminology specialty of interpretation. Not only are the injured worker’s civil rights to a

certified interpreter being violated, but when I show up for their appointments almost daily, am kicked

out of the clinic by the non-certified interpreter who showed up to help the same injured worker, in the

name of One Call, another large interpreting agency, or the Claims Examiner. That should not happen,

ever.

However, I am writing to express my concern about the fact you have completely eliminated market rate,

travel time and mileage, and are also suggesting a one-hour minimum for medical treatment

appointments, pro-rated thereafter. In my opinion, it looks like a Defense Attorney wrote this proposal

with no regard to interpreter’s thoughts, and if approved, may only apply in part to interpreters in

Southern California, where those interpreters have a lot of assignments on a daily basis and the ability to

make a good living without traveling far from home. In regard to the proposed fee schedule as it is

written, the following are the reasons some things need to change:

CONSEQUENCES TO:

Elimination of a market rate:

Supply & Demand is a very common factor in determining a market rate; not the only factor, but very

important. In this rural area of Northern California, there are very few freelance certified interpreters,

and a lot of injured workers. Therefore, as the demand for certified interpreters increases, so does our

demand to travel more to attend to the needs of these injured workers at their various medical treatment

appointments, therefore increasing the need for a higher market rate.

The current fee regulations were enacted 24 years ago to allow for market rate. This market rate has

evermore been increasing as certified interpreters in these rural areas move away to work in the larger

cities across California, leaving only a handful of us to cover a large area. Taking away market rate and

telling us we can only invoice $86.50 per assignment, not only gives us a huge cut in rates but


32

also presumes that for the next 24 years, we will never see a raise. If this were to happen, I would almost

certainly be looking for another career, and interpreting would be at best, a side job; and so would go the

story for other certified interpreters who work in this area who on average are currently paid $180.00 to

$260.00 at a medical interpreting assignment, depending on location of the medical facility and their

individual market rates.

Elimination of Travel Time & Mileage:

As I stated above, I live and work out of the City of Redding, CA. On a daily basis, I travel 25 to 75

miles each way to interpret for injured workers’ medical treatment appointments. This is a regular task in

this part of Northern California, north of Sacramento. Occasionally, I also have to travel to Eureka out on

the North Coast, and a round trip can exceed 300 miles.

Right now, there are 4 certified interpreters in Redding, CA and from here, the next certified interpreter

who still freelances occasionally is in Corning, CA., 45 miles south of Redding. There are a couple more

freelancers outside of Chico and one in Yuba City, although they primarily cover WCAB hearings,

depositions and Superior Court work. Together, we have the ability to cover most of the work in rural

Northern California, which is a very large expanse, but if you eliminate travel and mileage completely or

force us to work one-hour minimums and put a cap on our wages, you will most likely lose the certified

interpreters to other language markets or to the Superior Courts completely, and this will greatly affect

and violate injured workers’ rights to have a certified interpreter present at their appointments.

Elimination of the two-hour minimum, and pro-rating the single hour:

All freelance, independent contractors in this area, bill and have been billing a two-hour minimum for

medical treatment appointments for many, many years. A two-hour minimum encompasses the time we

must spend getting to the medical facility (as in, the injured worker and doctor are not coming to

us), interpreting for the receptionist upon arrival, sitting in the lobby with the injured worker, filling out

paperwork, waiting for the doctor to be available, interpreting for the doctor’s staff or nurse,

interpreting for the doctor, waiting for the assistant to bring a prescription and then assisting the injured

worker with the task of obtaining a follow-up appointment or interpreting for the staff member who

explains the RFA process for future treatment requests. This is only a simple example of what occurs

within the two-hour minimum period.

By implementing a One-Hour minimum for medical treatment appointments, the DIR is expecting

interpreters to complete the above in a one-hour time frame, and limiting the interpreter’s capacity to

obtain more assignments, which are usually at a completely different location and require much travel

time to get there. Furthermore, and as stated above, the elimination of travel time and mileage fees will

furthermore deprive the injured worker from gaining access to a certified interpreter.


33

Adding the “Pro-Rate” factor will create so many issues for certified interpreters to even want to perform

interpreting assignments, especially because they will not want to assist with more than one single

assignment per location, if completing more than one assignment creates an even greater pay-

cut. This will open the market to “Provisionally Certified” interpreters to cover all assignments, just as

they are doing so now.

If the interpreter had the control over the patients’ scheduling, then sure, we might be able to make a pay

cut somewhat less painful. However, the doctor’s office is the one who controls scheduling for the

doctor; not the interpreter. And even if the doctor’s office really wanted us there and scheduled multiple

appointments for the same interpreter simultaneously, pro-rating for less gives no incentive to do more

than one job per hour. This is an unrealistic expectation for the North State part of Northern California,

and will result in the loss of the few certified interpreters covering the area, which in turn will leave

injured workers without a competent, certified interpreter, in violation of their Due Process rights to

language access in this State.

SECTION BY SECTION COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE

Section 34. Appointment Notification and Cancellation.

(c) If the injured worker has to select and arrange for the presence of a certified interpreter at a med-legal

or medical treatment appointment pursuant to 9931, when the employer does not have an MPN that

includes interpreters, who notifies the injured worker of their right to do so? Considering the interpreter

cannot give legal advice and claims adjusters do not like using certified interpreters in these areas, they

therefore cannot be relied upon to relay this information. Can doctor’s offices make the request? Can an

interpreter advertise or market their personal certified interpreting service availability or are we to solely

rely on insurance companies to do the right thing, meanwhile they are sending non-certified interpreters

95% of the time, although current regulations require them to call ALL certified interpreters for

availability before provisionally certifying anyone else? What is a reasonable geographic area,

considering that in far North State CA, it is common for interpreters to travel 152 miles/3 hours round

trip to appointments in Chico, CA. from Redding, CA?

Section 9697.3 Requirements for a Medical Provider Network Plan

(1) This section talks about submission of an ancillary provider listing. Who can submit these

listings? Do they have to be chosen by the employer/insurer? In the past, I have been denied entry by

many insurance companies because a) “The MPN is not open at this time” or b) they “already have


34

provisionally certified interpreters.” A master list of each MPN interpreter MUST be mandatory. There

needs to be a period of open entry as well.

(2) If interpreter services are included as an MPN Ancillary service, the interpreters listed must be

certified as defined in section 9930 (b). Does One Call and other active MPN providers have these lists

available? How do you get on these lists? How do you obtain a copy of these lists? To date, One Call,

Access on Time, Communicaid, ProCare, STOPS, Optimal Care, SBD Solutions, iLingo, etc. and other

current MPN providers regularly use the services of non-certified interpreters, or as they call them

“Qualified Interpreters,” or “Provisionally Certified Interpreters.” This new regulation requires that by

submission of an ancillary provider listing, the applicant is affirming that the providers listed can provide

the requested medical services or goods and have a current valid license number or certification to

practice, if they are required to have a license or certification by the state of California. Will this put a

stop to the elicit abuse of using non-certified interpreters? For provisionally certified interpreters that

these MPN’s are sure to use, I would suggest they be listed as well with their training and qualification to

make them provisionally certified, should this get to the WCAB level. As of right now, in our area, the

non-certified interpreters used are not up to industry standards and most do not have any professional

training whatsoever. This is a SERIOUS risk of malpractice. In 2010, a report from UC Berkeley School

of Public Health & National Health Law Program examined 1,373 claims of malpractice in the state of

California. The study found that 35 of these cases, involving severe medical trauma and death, were the

direct result of poor medical interpreting. In one case, a child who would later die from respiratory arrest

provided her own interpreting between the doctors and her parents.

Section 9930 (m)

Section (iv) states that “a provisionally certified interpreter for medical treatment appointments and

medical-legal evaluations may be used when a certified interpreter for medical treatment appointments

and medical-legal evaluations cannot be present. The current regulations dictate that an interpreter can be

provisionally certified when a certified interpreter is not available. However, every day I run into so

called “provisionally certified interpreters” at medical treatment appointments, and although I am present,

am asked to leave by authorization of the adjuster via their MPN providers, and am not compensated.

Frequently the adjusters will then call the doctor’s office to tell them that they are not to use certified

interpreters, as certified interpreters are not needed for medical treatment appointments. This is slander.

Finally, the issue is not LAW – it is accountability. No one is enforcing these laws. I would like to

request that the government add a section in the new regulations that tells Certified Interpreters the

process to bring accountability to those that choose to disregard the law and not follow the new

regulations. As things stand, Defense attorneys tell me it is up to the injured worker to properly complain

about this to the WCAB, although they know that the injured worker will never do this because they do

not know how. The certified interpreter should be allowed and instructed in the regulations on how to do

this, as we are usually the only ones who know about this violation.


35

When SB863 was enacted, new billing disputes were created. The new regulations are going to tell us

how much we are to charge for our services; it should also tell us how to seek sanctions against those

who violate the provisions, especially when sending provisionally certified interpreters to appointments

where certified interpreters are available.

Section 9931 Selection and Arrangement for the Presence of an Interpreter

Section (f) If the employer’s MPN does not have an ancillary service with interpreters, does this mean

the injured worker or his agent representative can select an interpreter outside of the MPN? Also, how

does one become a member of an MPN?

Section (4) Refers to MPN’s that do not have interpreters, and therefore tells the injured worker that they

have to select their own interpreter and how to do so. Section (4) (g) tells the employer how to notify the

injured worker of who their qualified interpreter will be. If Section 4 talks about MPN’s that do not have

interpreters, then how can the employer in (4) (g) tell the injured worker who their qualified interpreter

will be? This is a contradiction to what is stated in Section (4).

Section (h) (2) (b) Says that a medical provider who has a qualified interpreter on staff and is on site may

use that interpreter. I don’t know of any medical provider north of Sacramento who has a Certified

Medical Interpreter on Staff. This Section should be amended to reflect that if the Medical Provider is

able to contact a Certified Interpreter who can be present within a reasonable period of time, or if there is

a Certified Interpreter in their office at the time, that interpreter shall be used. Furthermore, if the injured

worker knows a Certified Interpreter who can be present within a reasonable time, that interpreter shall

be used, and paid for their services without objection if invoiced correctly according to this Code.

9932 - Requirements to establish that a Certified Interpreter cannot be present.

(c) Half way through this paragraph it states that the party who is arranging for the services of a Certified

Interpreter “may” expand the area for locating and contacting the three interpreter’s service providers.

For purposes of assignments north of Sacramento or quite possibly in Central CA, the word “may”

should be changed to “shall”, or “must.” Furthermore, and from personal experience, 45 miles distance

is not long enough to cover most areas around Northern CA between cities. DFS Interpreting is the only

interpreting company who hires ONLY Certified Interpreters in all areas north of Sacramento. This

provision would limit our work to Redding, Red Bluff, and Corning, when on a regular basis, the

interpreters we hire staff assignments in Orland, Willows, Williams, Chico, Oroville, Gridley, Yuba City,

Marysville, Yreka, Mount Shasta, Susanville, Eureka, and many areas in between, traveling from their

home in Redding, Ca. If this were to go into legislature, this provision alone would allow employers to

provisionally certify non-certified interpreters, stating that there were no Certified Interpreters available,

just because the physical location of these interpreters is more than 45 miles away from the appointment


36

locations. As a suggestion for the area north of Sacramento/north of highway 80, a 100 to 160 radius is

more adequate.

(d) In anticipation of regularly running into so called “provisionally certified interpreters” at doctor’s

offices, if this should continue to occur after the new fee schedule is in place, how do we obtain these

records, and how do we pursue sanctions for those breaking the law by fraudulently stating that there are

no Certified Interpreters available?

(e) There should be a section (f), and it should state that the parties shall contact the doctor’s office or

applicant attorney’s offices to find out if there are any Certified Interpreters available to work in those

areas, as those doctors and attorneys are often aware of what Certified Interpreters are available in their

areas.

9933 - Requirements to perform Interpreter services at hearings and depositions.

(d) (1) This is the type of accountability that needs to be implemented for medical treatment

appointments. Since at a doctor’s office there is no court record, hearing officer, or court reporter, some

ideas for this type of accountability need to be formulated for the use of provisionally certified

interpreters at medical treatment appointments, Doctor’s offices, and medical facilities, or any venue that

do not have a “court record.”

2 and 2 (e) These Sections need to apply to medical treatment appointments as well. The practicing

physician should have similar authority as the hearing officer, and shall determine the competence of the

interpreter following the same steps that the hearing officer in section 2 (e) has to follow. 9934 (c)

authorizes the medical provider to determine if a proposed provisionally certified interpreter has

sufficient skill to be provisionally certified to interpret in the required language. 9934 (c) should be

amended to include the requirements that hearing officers have to obtain of provisionally certified

interpreters.

(h) This should also apply to Doctor’s reports; especially when provisionally certified interpreters are

used.

9934 – Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Medical Treatment Appointments and

Med-Legal Evaluations

Side Notes: For both medical treatment, Med-Legal, hearings and depositions, if a provisionally certified

interpreter is to be utilized, they should have in hand a provisional certification that outlines their

experience in interpreting, language training, conflict of interest considerations, education, their

understanding of non-disclosure and ethical requirements, and HIPPA law training, if any. Furthermore,

the provisional certification shall state all of the information recorded in section 9932 (d) with the name

and contact information of the person or entity who provisionally certified them. This should be a MUST


37

if provisionally certified interpreters are to be used. Just as Certified Interpreters have a license that they

are required to keep handy at all appointments, Provisionally Certified Interpreters should also be

required to have this provisional certification.

(b) As stated above, if the provisionally certified interpreter has a provisional certification on hand

provided by the employer and required at all appointments, this will provide accountability for the

employers’ use of non-certified and/or “provisionally certified” interpreters.

(d) This should also include a copy of the provisional certification for provisionally certified

interpreters. Furthermore, just as the new regulations suggest that once a certified interpreter is chosen,

that interpreter shall be the interpreter for the remainder of the case, in the instance of “provisional

certification”, that shall not be allowed to stand. There may be a day or time where a Certified Interpreter

is not available for an appointment, but that does not mean that a Certified Interpreter will not be

available during the duration of the entire case. Therefore, a provisional certification should have same-

day expiration requiring a thorough search for a Certified Interpreter before each and every appointment.

(e) This section should be eliminated as it is completely biased towards insurance companies. Never in

the history of interpretation in the worker’s compensation field has an interpreter had to pro-rate the

amount he/she can make based on the number of appointments he/she has. Medical providers do not have

to do this, neither do applicant attorneys, or transportation services, or any other companies that provide

medical services in the Worker’s Compensation arena. If these regulations are currently going to cut rates

in half by only allowing interpreters to bill a one hour minimum, that should be more than sufficient. I

can personally tell you that in this area of Northern California, the Certified Interpreters who charge the

lowest in the area, are still billing well above what these new regulations are proposing and will most

likely be put out of work or quit working, if these new regulations are to be imposed. This will

unquestionably have an adverse effect on the ability for the injured worker to properly communicate with

his/her medical provider or the Court. Adding regulations to increase the likelihood of having Certified

Interpreters in the workplace is not only beneficial to the injured worker but should also help reduce the

abuse currently taking place wherein insurance companies are using non-certified interpreters frequently

with no accountability for their actions. However, telling an interpreter what they are going to be allowed

to make for the rest of their lives, instead of leaving a Market Rate option in place, will DEFINITELY

cause countless Certified Interpreters to have to change careers, or lose their jobs. It is illogical and

counterproductive to attempt to make stricter rules for requiring Certified Interpreters, while also putting

a proposed cap on Certified Interpreters’ rates which will put those same Certified Interpreters out of

work. If furthermore suggesting to choose that if they work twice as hard and then cap their fees at an

even lower rate (lower than the already low rate suggested), is sure to make a mockery of the Certified

Interpreter profession. I understand that when anyone workshard and/or go the extra mile, their work

ethic is to be rewarded, and not

cut down. This should be respected, especially for anybody who is willing to work hard.


38

MARKET RATE SHALL NOT BE ELIMINATED.

(3) (A) This section suggests that interpreters should be paid a lower rate when working overtime. What

other types of jobs under California Law pay less than the regular hourly rate for overtime? That is a

violation of current Labor Laws and should not be permitted.

(3) (B) Suggesting that a certified interpreter at a legal setting work for a One-Hour minimum is

ludicrous and will never stand. No certified court interpreter will ever travel to an assignment to work for

a One-Hour minimum when he or she is accustomed to a half-day minimum for his services. If you are

trying to eliminate certified court interpreters in the Workers’ Compensation field, this is a great starting

point.

(4) Placing the responsibility on the Injured Worker to notify the employer of a late cancellation is

ridiculous, especially given the fact that most of the injured workers in California that need the services

of a language interpreter are illiterate or close to it. Requiring them to be responsible for the cancellation

of the parties is a guaranteed way to insure this will most likely never occur, allowing the employer to

object to the bill for interpreting services.

(b)(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) First off, no certified interpreter in their right mind will ever work for a One-Hour

minimum, even less, if their market rate is eliminated and a cap is put on what they can earn for that

hour. Secondly, limiting the pay for the amount of work performed in that same hour is even more

incentive for certified interpreters to begin looking for work outside of the scope of Workers’

Compensation appointments. While other medical entities may provide a fee schedule, they do not limit

the amount of work that can be performed within a certain timeframe, therefore incentivizing employees

and contractors alike to be more productive in order to earn a better living for themselves and their

families.

Granting a uniform pay-rate for interpreters across California is not the way to go. Leave the Market Rate

provisions in place, and you WILL see certified interpreters at work for years to come. Make us accept

what insurance companies think is a fair rate of pay, and say goodbye to the majority of your certified

interpreters.

I mean, after all, what other industry does not have pay increases as inflation and other market changes

occur? None.

(6) Same as above. If the injured worker is liable for notifying the parties, the employer will definitely

always come up with an excuse to not have to pay for the Late Cancellation.


39

I sincerely love my career as a certified interpreter and hope it would continue in the future. Thank you

for your consideration to my personal opinions above.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alberto Stambuk April 13, 2018

Administrative Hearing Certified Interpreter

The following are my concerns:

9934. Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Medical Treatment Appointments and Medical-

Legal Evaluations:

(c) The medical provider shall determine if a proposed provisionally certified interpreter has sufficient

skill to be provisionally certified to interpret in the required language.

No one but a certified language specialist can determine if another interpreter has the sufficient skills to

provide accurate and professional language interpretations. How has the medical provider acquired the

qualifications to determine if a provisionally certified interpreter has the sufficient skill to interpret in the

target language? Allowing a medical provider to authorize whether an interpreter is provisionally

certified, is just like allowing a certified interpreter to determine which one of the proposed orthopedic

Doctors will do a better job performing a back surgery on a patient.

My concern is in regards to S9934 (c). A medical provider does not always speak the target language,

and in almost all of the cases is not a professional linguist who can judge whether the interpreter has

sufficient skill to provide and accurate interpretation service. This will lead the medical provider to base

this decision on judgments and not an unbiased professional assessment on the interpreter's language skill

and proficiency. Certification is a standardized system that helps asses that all interpreters have sufficient

skill to render medical and legal services in the target languages, and this system can not be emulated by

a medical provider in a way that ensures clear and accurate communication. On a more pragmatic note, a

medical provider has no time to create a system that asses the interpreters language ability, and this

responsibility should not be given to them. Only an accredited certification institution should be given

this responsibility.

My concern is that once the regulation is approved, a date needs to be provided regarding

implementation. It also needs to be clear that the regulation will not be applied retroactively.


40

My concern, is in regards to 9767.3 Requirements for a MPN. It is pertinent that interpreters be notified

when an MPN chooses to provide interpreting ancillary services, and a language to support this

amendment should be added.

My concern is in regards to S9930. It is important that interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board

website who possess the medical certification be included in the definition of 9930 (a), because they are

perfectly capable of providing interpretations for medical-legal scenarios.

Add No show Fee

In order to secure our time to render interpreting services, an interpreter must reserve a sufficient amount

of time the day prior, at a minimum. Once an interpreter schedules an assignment for the next day, that

time is secured, and no other assignment can be accepted. It is out of our control if either the medical

provider, the legal service providers, or the injured worker do not appear at the assignment. If no fee is

given to interpreters for no shows, then it will make assignments much less dependable for all parties,

and may run the risk that the interpreter may not be present as they can schedule other assignments that

are much more dependable from the workers compensation field.


Legal Evaluations:









____________________________________________________________________________________

Melinda Gonzalez-Hibner April 13, 2018

Federally Certified Court Interpreter

I write to express my concern and opposition to several of the proposed changes to your interpreter

regulations. The proposed changes work against standards of professional competence and skill for

interpreters, to the detriment of fairness and the just administration of worker’s compensation laws for all

people. Professional, highly skilled and ethically trained interpreters are crucial for the accurate


41

evaluation of the medical and occupational needs of limited English speakers. Your proposed changes

work against the continuing profesionalización of interpreters, and take us back in time rather than

towards a better future.

Specifically:

1. 9936p (b) (3). This section proposes a one hour minimum. The previous standard had been a two hour

minimum. This amounts to a 50% pay cut to interpreters. A one hour minimum does not take into

account what we call the setup and teardown necessary for getting to the appointment, or the fact that

appointments do not always run the specified time. They often run longer. Under these conditions,

interpreters will not be able to allow the extra hour of pad in their schedules, and will have to leave

appointments before they have finished, because it is the end of the hour, in order to get to their next

appointment. This does not benefit patients or interpreters. Please return to the two hour minimum.

2. 9933 (e) The hearing officer is not trained in evaluating interpreting skills. To be able to evaluate

interpreting skills, one has to be a competent interpreter, at a minimum. Only highly skilled, credentialed

and experienced interpreters can act as objective and knowledgeable examiners or evaluators of

interpreting skill.

3. 9934 (c) A medical provider is not qualified to judge the qualifications of a qualified interpreter, either.

See (3) above.

4. 9932 (a) Requesters of interpreter services are only required to attempt to find three certified

interpreters before they call on an unqualified interpreter. Said provider could always call the same

overbooked interpreters, so they could meet the letter of the law, and be able to call the usual unqualified

interpreter in order to save money. This is what happens when unqualified interpreters are paid

significantly less than certified interpreters: providers are motivated to select the less qualified providers

in order to save.

5. 9937. Billing fees can’t be the same for all languages and regions. Please return to market value. For

some languages, such as Vietnamese, or for rural areas, this second step is essential. These languages

also command higher rates of pay, and will not likely accept the same rate as the languages that are more

frequently needed.

I urge you not to implement these changes.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Marisa del Rio April 13, 2018

CMI – Spanish


42

I have earlier commented but wanted to add another important issue. That is when two interpreters show

up for the same appointment and one is certified, the other is not, but the insurance company says the

non-certified interpreter is authorized to stay. To protect the workers' rights, the more qualified

interpreter should ALWAYS be the one to provide services.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Elizabeth Milos April 13, 2018

State Certified Medical Interpreter

I am a California State Certified Medical Interpreter who has been working in the Workers Compensation

field since 2002. I have seen many changes take place during this time and most of it has not been very

beneficial in safeguarding the language access rights of the injured limited English-speaking worker.

I would like to make it clear that even though I am a Certified Medical Interpreter who has been

interpreting at hearings and depositions, I agree with the proposals set forth by many of my colleagues.

Part of the proposal would prohibit the further use at hearings and depositions of interpreters with

medical certifications. I agree with this proposal because it would keep the integrity of our respective

certifications and competencies intact, clear and easy to follow.

I was freelance for the first 7 years and was grateful that Language Service Providers were able to absorb

the risk of not being paid by the insurance companies. I would not have been able to work if I had had to

wait 6 months to years in order to be paid. Many LSPs have had to file liens to get even partial payment.

Some insurance companies have employed unethical negotiation tactics with veiled threats of not using

that particular LSP any further if the LSP insisted on getting its full payment for services rendered.

I have also been an employee medical interpreter since 2007. As such, we are part of the healthcare team

so our presence is not part of any legal proceeding featuring any parties in an adversarial relationship.

Even within that context, sometimes interpreting can be challenging. In an adversarial relationship, it

poses even more challenges, which may have legal consequences.

When medical providers are conducing Worker’s Compensation Medical Evaluations, serious problems

can result if he/she utilizes his or her own staff member as an interpreter.

That staff member depends on the medical provider’s evaluation of his or her work performance in

general, which may affect the staff member’s ability to faithfully render the injured workers complaints

for fear of contradicting the provider.


43

This is sometimes true even in a non-legal setting, when medical interpreters at hospitals, are sometimes

told by medical providers, whom are unaware of interpreter Code of Ethics, that they “don’t have to

interpreting everything” that is being said in the room.

The safety and livelihood of Limited English Proficient injured workers are at stake if you do not heed

the expert advice of the language specialists in the field. That is the basis of our concern. Also,

professional Interpreters need to be able to have an income that is sustainable if we are to continue

providing good language services.

Often, government agencies hire expensive consultants to provide them with insights into the workflow

and processes of service delivery. In this case, you are obtaining valuable information for free, from the

actual experts. It would behoove you to listen to this sound advice.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Carmen L. Saenz April 13, 2018

Certified Court Interpreter

I have read the proposed changes to the interpreter regulations and would respectfully like to share my

comments with the DWCF.

Although I do not work in California, nevertheless, this is a matter of concern to the entire interpreting

profession. As professionals, we invest a lot of time, effort and money, then undergo a very rigorous and

lengthy process to become certified. This is followed by continuous honing of skills, enrolling in

workshops to secure the required continuing education credits, undergoing periodical background checks

and expenses for re-certification every other year.

I am strongly opposed to the changes proposed in:

§9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter. Provisional certification should be

reserved for cases where all efforts have been made to secure a certified interpreter, or where there is no

avenue for certification.

§9936. Computation of Fees. Interpreter fees should not be reduced to a minimum of one hour vs. two.

Discounted rates due to an interpreter providing services for multiple clients is unacceptable. Other

professionals such as doctors or lawyers do not follow this trend under the same conditions. Why should

an interpreter?


44

I am in favor of fair working conditions and compensation for interpreters, not only in California, but in

every other state where a high degree of professionalism and high quality of interpretation is expected

and required. As such, I am very supportive of the concerns expressed by the CWCIA.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Brenda Guiterrez Baeze, CHI-Spanish April 13, 2018


I'm writing to express my concern about these changes. Getting paid for just 1 hour would not permit us

to have enough time to commute between assignments! Being paid for 2 hours permit us to arrive on

time, 10-15 minutes early.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Victoria Torres April 13, 2018

Court Certified Interpreter

The following are concerns and comments about the proposed Interpreter Fee Schedule:

Section 9931

(h) Alternative Selection of Interpreter:

(B) At medical-legal evaluations or medical treatment appointments, if the medical provider has a

qualified interpreter on staff at the site available, that interpreter shall be used.

If a staff paid by the medical provider is given the responsibility to interpret as well as suffice their other

work obligations given to them by their employer, it will not ensure an accurate interpreting service. The

role of an interpreter is to be an impartial advocate for clear communication, and it is pertinent that this

role be given to someone who is not paid for by the medical provider. If it is, a conflict of interest may

arise, since the interest of the staff is to satisfy their employers’ responsibilities instead of ensuring

impartial interpretations. An English speaking worker does not have to go through a biased staff to

communicate their medical needs, and neither should the worker who does not speak the English

language.


Legal Evaluations: (c) The medical provider shall determine if a proposed provisionally certified

interpreter has sufficient skill to be provisionally certified to interpret in the required language.


45







9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter

(1) The party noticing the deposition shall select and arrange for the presence of an interpreter.

(2) This subdivision shall include the preparation of the deponent immediately prior to the deposition, the

reading of a deposition transcript to the deponent prior to signing, and the reading of prior volumes of

deposition transcript.

Having the same interpreter at a Deposition Preparation as well as at a Deposition presents an obvious

conflict of interest as there is a possibility that the injured worker may be subject to violation of attorney

client privileges. This is discriminatory as the English speaking worker will never be subject to this

situation.

Under 9930 Definitions

There is no allowance for Mileage and travel time

In many cases it will not be cost effective for interpreters covering rural areas, or areas outside of 25

miles, to travel for an assignment, therefore it may prevent the injured worker to receive interpreting

services.

Definitions

Add No show Fee

In order to secure our time to render interpreting services, an interpreter must reserve a sufficient amount

of time the day prior, at a minimum. Once an interpreter schedules an assignment for the next day, that

time is secured, and no other assignment can be accepted. It is out of our control if either the medical

provider, the legal service providers, or the injured worker do not appear at the assignment. If no fee is

given to interpreters for no shows, then it will make assignments much less dependable for all parties,

and may run the risk that the interpreter may not be present as they can schedule other assignments that

are much more dependable from the workers compensation field.

Compensation Fees.


46

Establishing a two hour minimum fee for medical assignments is a necessity as it is not cost effective for

an interpreter to travel to an assignment and get paid for one hour even if the actual time spent with the

Doctor is one hour or less.

A Legal Certified Interpreter will not be able to read a deposition transcript to an injured worker and get

paid a prorated amount as it is not cost effective. A legal certified interpreter doing the deposition review

is entitled to the same pay as the legal certified interpreter who provided services during the deposition,

as both interpreters are required to provide their services under oath, and it is the same document.

Lastly, there needs to be an effective date going forward in which these regulations will be implemented

after approval.

____________________________________________________________________________________

David B. Shafer, Founder & Owner April 13, 2018

DFS Interpreting

This review and the suggested adaptations of the proposed Fee Schedule changes are

recommended by David Shafer, Certified medical/court interpreter and Founder & Owner

of DFS Interpreting Redding CA.

Implications of Changes: Addressing the primary issue - how changes will affect the

injured LEP (Limited English Proficient) workers and their legal right to have accessible,

non-discriminatory language access, per State and Federal Civil Rights Law.

Hypothesis: The State is looking for opportunities to improve the overall systematic

delivery of language service providers. It is proposing changes to mitigate discrepancies,

unclog the providers' time spent on billing disputes and mediate the playing field

between interpreters, injured workers and insurance companies.

Conclusion: In i ts current form, many certified interpreters will discontinue working

(either by choice or will fiscally be forced out) within the Workers' Compensation

arena, thus opening the door for "Provisionally Certified" interpreters to be standard;

which is not what was originally intended. There needs to be revisions in the Proposal to

avoid catastrophic collateral damage. It is the strong belief of DFS Interpreting, it’s peers

and colleagues that if the proposed regulations become adopted, there will be severe

subsequent implications adding to the already low inventory of certified interpreters

and will detrimentally decrease access to a certified interpreter for LEP injured workers.


47

TRAVEL AND MILEAGE:

In rural parts of California, Travel and Mileage are vital to procuring a certified

interpreter. Especially in the North State region of California, mileage and travel time

allowances are the only feasible way to deliver services when travelling hundreds of

miles. Logistically, the North State (Shasta-Cascade Humboldt, Ca) covers over 35,000

sq. mi. To meet the market demand - savvy strategy, strict scheduling and long days of

travel are required. Eliminating mileage would render those assignments as a negative

profit generating option. This is artificially removing the ability for interpreters and

language service providers (LSP's) to provide services to the injured workers that live in

rural areas of the State, as the fee proposed is in no way reasonable pay for travel

required to service some remote areas.

Furthermore, DFS Interpreting strategically centralized its office in Redding so to provide

service to all LEP injured workers in accordance with its fiduciary duty. Disallowing

travel and mileage in an attempt to regulate billing would actually create a much

bigger problem of having "provisionally certified" interpreters to come in and do

the work in areas where certified interpreters are readily able to travel to and do so

everyday already. This is in complete defiance of the law which was created to encourage

certified interpreters, not deter them.

GEOGRAPHIC MODIFIER:

Current Market Climate: According to the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of

California (WCIRB) – which is the licensed rating organization for Workers' Compensation and is

the California Insurance Commissioner's designated statistical agent - stark contrasts exists in

injuries and occurrences based on geography. The proportion of cumulative injuries in the Los

Angeles Basin area is almost twice the proportion for the remainder of California; creating a

higher frequency of assignments and longer continuum of care for each injured worker. This is not

the case in Northern California. The anti-poaching regulations do not translate to the North State.

Not only are there far fewer assignments for interpreters, the overhead expenses to operate in

this region are exponential due to the extreme logistical costs.

With less than 40 certified interpreters north of Sacramento, a whopping 30% of Cal i fornia is

exposed to an extremely limited pool of certified interpreters. For those few certified

interpreters, the ONLY aspect keeping them in business is charging Market Rate. Due to the

above-mentioned facts, this market has deterred most interpreters and LSP's from entering it.

The cost PER ASSIGNMENT is much greater than in Los Angeles; however, that is an exaggerated

amount that does not factor in expenses. It is simple supply and demand - but when factoring in

all operating expenses, the profit margins are roughly the same as anywhere in the State. The vast


48

geography of the North State creates a logistical cost that is approximatel y eight times higher than

anywhere else.

The Proposal to make all of California's certified interpreters across the State invoice the same rate

is NOT a solution because there are different markets. If all thins remained equal, this would be a

solution. But due to the variables described earlier, this solution would be a catastrophic mistake

that would inevitably take away the small pool of certified interpreters in those markets and give

the LEP injured workers only provisionally certified in terpreters. This would not even the

playing field; is would only be suffocating the certified interpreters whose

overhead/operati ng costs are not being factored in and create a monstrous disparity in service

levels between Northern and Southern California.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I understand that there are many voices and

differing ideologies regarding this legislation that must be weighed out.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Mina Thorlaksson April 13, 2018

California State Certified Interpreter

As a last minute comment, I would like to offer the following:

Why at every attempt to regulate the work and fees of the interpreters there is always a loophole giving

the adjusters and others the option to use the services of a person who is not certified? If the DIR persists

on that idea, why not use the same criteria for the other professional participants in the workers’

compensation system?

Let’s say, for example, if the qualified medical examiner is not available, someone from his staff would

be allowed to do the evaluation. Or, if an attorney is not available, someone who is not an attorney, has

not gone to law school and has not passed the bar could do the work, or better yet, if the administrative

law judge is not available then a secretary or typist from his office could preside the hearing and decide

the case.

It is time to give the certified interpreters profession the respect that it deserves. All participants in the

process should be certified to the highest standards: physicians, attorneys, court reporters and interpreters

as we all have important roles that affect the outcome of the cases and ultimately, the injured worker.

____________________________________________________________________________________

S. James Tsui April 13, 2018


49

I would like to make one more comment before the 5pm deadline.

9931 (e) Medical Treatment Appointments. For accepted claims and claims under investigation

......interpreters shall be selected and arranged for as follows:

I look in subsequent pages for a follow up to the above about "For denied claims", I don't see it

anywhere. If there is no different regulations to denied claims, the above should read "For accepted

claims, claims under investigation and denied claims...interpreters shall be selected.......

____________________________________________________________________________________

Vincent Mejia April 13, 2018

Yolanda Duran April 13, 2018

Yvonne O’Malley April 13, 2018

Clara Bonilla April 13, 2018

H. Raul Beguiristain, PhD April 13, 2018

The proposal raises several questions:




• It waters down the requirements to provide limited English proficient (LEP) injured workers with

professional interpreters and meaningful language access, a civil right afforded by Title VI.


• It seeks to limit the earning potential of interpreter service providers and interpreters, which in turn will

limit the availability of certified interpreter to LEP injured workers.





minimums for treatment appointments in offices where medical providers do not service a lot of workers’

compensation cases will lead certified interpreters to decline said appointments, allowing for


50

“provisionally” certified interpreters as defined in this proposal to benefit the most, to the detriment of

the LEP injured worker.






Consider opposing the following specific sections:

Division 1. Department of Industrial Relations

Chapter 4.5 Division of Workers’ Compensation,

Subchapter 1. Administrative Director

Article 3.5 Medical Provider Network

9767.3 Requirements for a MPN: Please add language allowing for Interpreter Service Providers (ISPs) and interpreters to be notified when

an MPN chooses to provide INTERPRETING as ancillary services.

REASON:

Because doing so would provide a level playing field, permitting interpreters to assume the risk of

providing services outside the MPN. The way things are currently, interpreters are the last to know and

find out only after having provided the services.

Title 8. Industrial Relations


Chapter 4.5 Division of Workers’ Compensation

Subchapter 1 Administrative Director-Administrative Rules

Article 11 Fees and Requirements for Interpreter Services

Under §9930. Definitions

Strike “medical examinations” from the definition of 9930 (a) “Certified interpreter for hearings and

depositions”

Reason: Because interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website who possess the medical

certification are precluded from interpreting in the legal setting.


51

Under §9930. Definitions:

(e) “Full day" means interpreting services performed which exceed one half-day, up to 8 hours.

CHANGE TO 7 HOURS

Reason:

Because full time employees are entitled to two 10-15 minute breaks and a 30 minute or one hour lunch,

depending on the schedule. Interpreters cannot be expected to work an 8-hour day, with no breaks.

As per ASTM Standard F-2089-15 Standard Practice for Language Interpreting, which was given to you

at our meeting of November 2016, interpreting is a unique, cognitively demanding activity that requires

breaks. Refer to the DEFINITION under Section 3.1.1 and Section 7.6 NUMBER OF INTERPRETERS

REQUIRED

Under §9930. Definitions: (f) “Half-day" means:

(2) When appearing at a deposition, all or any part of 3.5 hours;

CHANGE TO 3 HOURS and ADHERE TO A HALF DAY MORNING AND AFTERNOON

DEFINITION FOR DEPOSITIONS, i.e: 8:30 am to 12:00 pm AND 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm

Reason:

Because the 3.5 hour half day definition works for WCAB calendar, where the start time is 8:30 and end

time is 12:00, then 1:30 and 5:00 respectively, but not for depositions which take place in

different locations. Interpreters need time for lunch, and to travel from morning to afternoon assignments,

which often take place in differing

locations.

Please refer to the En Banc Decision of Guitron vs. Santa Fe Extruders/ SCIF and the Mercedes Osuna

BAK 141379 case

Under §9930. Definitions: AFTER (h) “Hearing officer” ADD:

INTERPRETER SERVICE PROVIDER (ISP)

Reason: Because the reality is that most freelance interpreters don’t bill carriers directly. Agencies do a lot of

legwork to provide interpreters for the countless events that need scheduling daily. ISPs perform a vital

function in coordinating interpreting services across the state and is mentioned throughout the proposed

document, but not defined. The fees contained in the proposal will not be the

Under §9930. Definitions: (j) “Medical-Legal Evaluation” means an evaluation as defined in sections 9793(c) and (g).


52

CHANGE TO:

Medical-Legal Evaluations & Consultations

Reason: Because medical-legal consultations also exist


There is no allowance for MILEAGE AND TRAVEL TIME

Reason: Because all assignments require that interpreters travel to the site where the services will be performed.

Because other providers in the system, including defense attorneys, who must travel are compensated

for Under §9930.

Definitions: Add definition for: NO SHOW FEES

Reason: Because it is an industry standard for interpreter professionals who reserve time for a given service to be

reimbursed no less than the minimum fee unless notified of a cancelation at least 24 hours prior to the

time the service is to be provider. Unexpected cancellations are out of the interpreter’s control.

§9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter:

The injured worker is required to select and arrange for the services of a certified interpreters, but the

proposal contradicts this requirement in section 9931 (4) (f):

(f) If the injured worker is responsible for selecting the interpreter, the injured worker or his/her agent, if

represented, shall promptly select the interpreter and notify the employer within two business days of the

selection, so the employer has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter

Reason: Because on section 9931 (4) (f): it says that the employer has to be notified within two days that the

injured worker has selected and arranged for the presence of the interpreter, so that the employer has

sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter. THIS MAKES NO SENSE, it is

contradictory.


(g) Employer Obligation to Notify Injured Worker of Interpreter Selection

Reason:


53

Because there is no penalty for the employer failing to comply with the obligation to notify the injured

worker that the interpreter has been selected. This happens routinely. The employer’s preferred vendor

frequently fails to send an interpreter, leading to the local interpreter service provider or certified

interpreter present on site to be asked to perform the services, which in turn are objected to by the

employer, and go unpaid.

(h) Alternative Selection of Interpreter: (B) At medical-legal evaluations or medical treatment appointments, if the medical provider has a


Reason: Because this represents a huge conflict of interest.

Because a staff interpreter’s ethical requirement to be neutral and impartial will be compromised by the

nature of the employer/employee relationship. Because the medical provider will deem any “bilingual”

staff member qualified to interpret in order not to miss seeing a patient for whom the employer has failed

to comply with their obligation to send the interpreter...

Section 9932. Requirements to Establish that a Certified Interpreter Cannot Be Present:

All of the following requirements must be met to establish that a certified interpreter cannot be present:

(a) A party shall contact by telephone, fax, or email at least three interpreter service providers to request

that a certified interpreter be available at the event.

Reason: Because this requirement is too low and it facilitates the employer’s preferred vendor, who often asks for

the services of a non-certified interpreter, to shirk its due diligence to find a certified interpreter. Ten

would be a better number.


(d) A party shall keep a written record of the interpreter service providers personally contacted to obtain a

certified interpreter, including the telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, dates and times of

each contact, and the names of the individuals who indicated that the interpreter service provider had no

certified interpreters available for the event. The written record shall contain, if applicable, a statement

that an interpreter service provide did not respond to the inquiry made under subdivision (a) within one

business day.

Reason:

Because there is no indication of enforcement or oversight. How will it be known that the employer has

complied with this obligation? How long will said records be required to exist? Who can see said

records? What is the penalty for not complying with these requirements? Because if a certified interpreter

is on site and available and states that the employer did not contact him, he does not get to perform the

services.


54

§9933 Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Hearings and Depositions:

(f) All interpreters shall state on the record the following information: the interpreter’s full name, whether

this is the first or a subsequent interpretation during the same one-half day or full day time period; the

number of interpretations the interpreter has already done during the same time period; and the total

number of hearings or depositions the interpreter is scheduled to perform during the same time period. In

addition, certified interpreters shall state on the record the name of the certifying agency or organization

and the interpreter’s certification credential or badge number.

Reason: Because the practical application of this is simply not feasible.

There are all too often unforeseen circumstances including cancellations, add ons, the I&A officers

requesting last minute interpretation, etc.

For example, an interpreter might go on the record initially stating they have 2 cases. After completing

the first case, they find that the other case has been cancelled. Now they are only there for one case. Their

billing would not reflect the official record leading to billing disputes that would need to be resolved at a

hearing before the WCAB, not to mention an accusation of perjury.

Because this places an undue burden on the hearing officers and the certified interpreters who are

engaged in servicing the LEP injured worker and those who need to communicate with her.

Hearing officers verifying credentials is one thing. Policing of certified interpreters as set forth by this

section is an insult to the profession.

§9934. Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Medical Treatment Appointments and Medical-

Legal Evaluations:



Reason: Because how can a monolingual medical provider needing an interpreter possibly be the arbiter of

whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter? This is simply absurd. The interpreter

profession has already provided the DIR/DWC with a work-around: on May 20, 2016, a document titled

Provisionally Certified Interpreter Appeal, signed by 14 interpreting associations, nation-wide, was sent

to AD Parisotto and Staff Counsel Hersh warning about the dangers and recommending an alternative to

this misguided notion. Because this is a very dangerous proposal that risks trampling on the limited

English proficient injured worker’s civil right to meaningful access to government services as protected

by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964


Legal Evaluations:


55

(d) All interpreters shall provide proof of identity, and if certified, proof of certification. A certified

interpreter shall present to the medical provider his/her credential with photo identification. A

provisionally certified interpreter shall present to the medical provider his/her photo identification. The

medical provider shall review the credential and/or photo identification to verify the individual is the

interpreter represented on the credential or photo identification, and attach a copy of the credential and/or

photo identification to the medical-legal exam report or medical treatment appointment file.

Reason:

Because certified interpreters are concerned about their credentials and personal information being

circulated in medical report distribution. There is enough fraud as it is with unscrupulous noncertified

interpreters and the agencies who send them posing as certified interpreters. Because the medical

provider has access to the internet and can verify the names of the certified interpreters on the websites

listings. Because the medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the employer objecting to pay an

interpreter’s bill Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already requires this information/ Because

this places an undue burden on medical providers


Legal Evaluations:

(e) Interpreters shall inform the medical provider whether this is the first or subsequent interpretation

during the same one-hour medical treatment appointment time period or the same two-hour medical-legal

exam time period; the number of interpretations the interpreter has already done during the same time

period; The medical provider shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report or medical file.

Reason: Because frequently, scheduled assignments and the actual outcome are different. There is no way for an

interpreter or ISP to know how long an assignment is expected to last. Guesstimating how many

assignments within a one-hour period is impossible. This will be labor intensive for the medical provider

and the interpreter. The medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the employer objecting to pay

an interpreter’s bill.

§9936. Computation of Fees: THIS ENTIRE SECTION!

Reason: Because interpreters should be entitled to some minimum amount in order to ensure that a particular

assignment is worth their while. The two-hour minimum is an industry wide standard. Many assignments

require an interpreter to travel to the site where services are to be rendered. Interpreters constantly have to

turn down time-conflicting assignments. No interpreter will travel over one hour and 60 miles, as in the

case in many, many regions of California to be paid for one hour of the sight translation of a court


56

binding document, as in the case of deposition transcript reviews, at the one hour minimum rate of

$56.00! This is even less than what this proposal allows for a “provisionally” non-certified interpreter at a

medical treatment appointment (see MTI-2) : $57.75 per hour. LEP injured workers will lose meaningful

language access to workers’ compensation services when professional interpreters leave the field for

greater respect, equal pay and improved working conditions in this fast-growing industry. Interpreters are

being singled out like no other providers: why are interpreters required to pro-rate their services? Doctors

can see 5 patients in a day, or 10 or 20, as long as they bill at fee schedule. They can have a P.A., and

treat patients concurrently, and still bill at the fee schedule for each appointment. Attorneys at the WCAB

do not prorate their fees to different clients. Restaurants do not charge less on busy nights. Jiffy-lube

doesn’t charge less the more customers they service in any given hour. This is discriminatory.

§9937. Billing Fees and Codes: Add billing code for review and signing of settlement documents at informal settings

Reason: It is a trend in our industry for the applicant to sign settlement documents, in the applicant attorney’s

office, to avoid delaying settlement of a case until a hearing can be set.

§9937. Billing Fees and Codes: THIS ENTIRE SECTION

Reason: Because these “one size fits all” fees do not work for all languages in all geographical locations.


solution has already been presented to the DWC both in writing and in person on several occasions. The

BRG study included a compilation of fees charged by interpreters throughout the state. Because these

fees won’t assure an adequate supply of interpreters for languages of lesser diffusion (LLD). Many of

these interpreters receive a small volume of assignments per year and the fees must be higher in order to

ensure availability to the injured worker. Additionally these interpreters must travel long distances to

preform services. Many LLD interpreters have expressed that these proposed fees would drive them out

of workers’ compensation and into other industries with better compensation. Because the two-hour

minimum is an industry wide standard. Because many assignments require an interpreter to travel to the

site where services are to be rendered. Because the free hand of the market should prevail.

§9938. Interpreter Billing Requirements for Payment: (12) A declaration by the interpreter stating: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the information

contained in this report and its attachments, if any, is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief.” The declaration shall be signed and dated by the interpreter and indicate the county and state in

which it was signed.

Reason:


57

Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already allows for such a declaration by the individual

interpreter providing the services. It is called an Interpreter Verification Form (IVF)

Because when an Interpreter Service Provider (ISP) is the one billing, the free-lance interpreter who

performed the services cannot sign each bill.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Sharon L. Hulbert, Assistant General Counsel April 13, 2018

Zenith Insurance Company

We appreciate the long course and difficulty behind developing fee schedules when competing interests

are involved and appreciate the work that has gone into this effort. Zenith Insurance Company (“Zenith”)

strongly supports the ongoing effort to develop interpreter regulations that create a fee schedule for

interpreter services as we believe it will help minimize unnecessary litigation and clarify many areas of

dispute. Some of our comments are on sections that did not change but were included due to concerns on

potential confusion or conflict. Thank you in advance for indulging our inclusion of those comments.

Before going into detail, we wanted to make a few general comments:

1. We encourage creating a fee schedule titled the Official Interpreter Fee Schedule to avoid disputes

in the future. The schedule would apply regardless of the setting in which services apply and

would require payment at fee schedule or the interpreter’s contracted rate if they have a

contract with the party arranging services. Interpreter’s would be obligated to accept the fee

schedule rate for services performed unless they have an existing contract in place at the time

services are requested. The interpreter fee schedule for medical treatment could be incorporated

into the Official Medical Fee Schedule if desired because it falls under Labor Code 4600.

However, for QME’s, this would fall under Labor Code 4620 and for legal interpreting, the cost

falls under Labor Code 5811(b). Whichever method is chosen, this should be a fee schedule, not

just a billing code.

2. Throughout the proposed regulations, several sections place the burden of arranging interpreter

services on the injured worker. Zenith strongly believes that the employer/payor should arrange

for interpreter services especially for medical office visits and when the injured worker is not

represented by an attorney. With respect to hearings, we believe it is appropriate for the applicant

attorney to select an interpreter within a Medical Provider Network but question placing that

burden on an unrepresented injured worker. We go into more detail on this point in appropriate

sections.

3. We strongly support reducing complexity in billing codes and guides. Therefore, we support a

simple hourly billing rate approach based on 15 minute intervals. We are concerned that other

methods increase administrative billing and review processes and are more prone to abuse.


58

4. We also support innovation within the industry and therefore, would like the regulations to

consider future technology developments that support enhanced communication with injured

workers though secure mobile applications, provider portal systems that will support billing, time

tracking and communication and telemedicine type applications that could be used for remote

translation services. Keeping the regulations current and open to new technology approaches will

enable us as an industry to provide better services to injured workers in both populated and

remote areas. We ask that this be kept in mind as the regulations go through the review and

approval process so that we do not create artificial road blocks to future improvements in the

system.

The following are sets forth our specific comments by section:

1. Section 9930(f) includes two different definitions of half-day depending on the service provider.

To avoid confusion a single time frame should be used to define a half-day regardless of the

service provided. Therefore, Zenith recommends the following language change to 9930(f)(3):

(3) When appearing at an evening arbitration, all or any part of 3 3.5 hours.

2. Section 9930(g) includes the phrase “or other similar settings.” We have found this to be vague

and confusing which leads to disputes over its intended application. We have also seen this abused

when applicant attorney’s request an interpreter come to their office to translate a Compromise

& Release to the injured worker. If these services are going to be allowed, then the definition of

hearing should be clarified and a fee schedule applied to limit the billings as it is not uncommon

for us to see billings for $255 for 15 minutes reading. Additionally we have seen bills for over a

$1000 when the interpreter reads several C & Rs within a one hour period while at the same

office. The applicant attorney is not present when the reading is done. This practice should be

prohibited and be excluded as a “similar setting”. We suggest the following changes:

(g) “Hearing” includes an appearance or proceeding before the appeals board, an arbitration,

settlement conference, Information and Assistance conference, or an appearance or proceeding

before an assigned hearing officer. similar settings determined by the Administrative Director to

be reasonably necessary to determine the validity and extent of injury to an injured worker, or

issues related to entitlement to benefits.

If the above suggestion is rejected, then as an alternative the provision should be clarified as

follows to limit abusive practices:



before an assigned hearing officer, or at an attorney, court reporter’s office or other appropriate

location for the purposes of reading a compromise and release or stipulation to the injured worker.

Services provided at attorney offices must be performed with the attorney present to answer

any questions the injured worker may have during the reading. other similar settings


59

determined by the Administrative Director to be reasonably necessary to determine the validity

and extent of injury to an injured worker, or issues related to entitlement to benefits.

Additionally, these services should be incorporated into the fee schedule. We suggest hourly

billing in 15 minute increments with a one hour minimum but disallow the practice of billing

the minimum to multiple parties when services are provided to multiple parties at the same

location on the same day during the same one hour time period.

Finally, under Jose Guitron vs. Santa Fe Extruders, State compensation Insurance Fund, 76 Cal

Comp. Cases 228; 2011 Cal Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 40 (en banc), in order to recover its charges for

interpreter services, the interpreter lien claimant has the burden of proving, among other things,

that the services it provided were reasonably required; that the services were actually provided;

that the interpreter was qualified to provide the services, and that the fees charged were

reasonable. In Guitron, the WCAB stated: “If the physician speaks the injured worker’s

language, or if the physician chooses to use a member of his or her staff to interpret, then it is

unlikely that other interpreter services would be reasonably required.” The same rationale would

logically apply to the situation where the attorney speaks the injured worker’s language. See

also Comment 15 below. These concepts should be added to the regulations for all interpreter

services regardless of reason for the services or the setting of the services to avoid unnecessary

cost and litigation concerning services being provided when the attorney and injured worker

both speak the language at issue fluently.

3. Section 9767.3(c)(3) states in pertinent part:

“If interpreter services are included as an MPN ancillary service, the interpreters listed must

be certified as defined in section 9930(b) 9795.1.6(a)(2)(A) and (B).”

We recognize that this section was not changed in the forum proposed regualtions. However, we

are concerned about the impact on MPNs if the MPN cannot include provisionally certified

interpreters in the MPN. The above section appears to create a conflict with the employer’s right

to waive use of a certified interpreter under Section 9934 and allow the use of provisionally

certified interpreters. Under Section 9934, the employer, and therefore the employer’s MPN, can

consent to use an interpreter that is not certified. Therefore, an MPN should have the ability to

include both certified and provisionally certified interpreters in the MPN and take advantage of

contract rates for provisionally certified interpreters. In order to clear up this conflict, Zenith

proposes the following language change:

“If interpreter services are included as an MPN ancillary service, the interpreters listed must be

certified as defined in section 9930(b) 9795.1.6(a)(2)(A) and (B) or be provisionally certified

interpreters consented to by the employer.”

4. Section 9931(b), Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter currently states:


60

“(b) Hearings. The injured worker shall select and arrange for the presence of an interpreter.”

As noted in our general comments, Zenith does not have a concern with an applicant

attorney selecting the certified interpreter from a list of MPN certified interpreters. However,

this burden should not be placed on the individual injured worker since it will become their duty

to make sure the interpreter appears, provide certain notices, etc. That burden should be on

either the employer/payor or, when the injured worker is represented, the applicant attorney.

Therefore we recommend the following language change:

“(b) Hearings. When an injured worker is represented, the injured worker or the injured worker’s

attorney shall select and arrange for the presence of an interpreter. If the injured worker is

not represented by an attorney, the employer shall select and arrange for the presence of an

interpreter.”

5. Section 9931(e)(2) states:

(2) If the injured worker is a covered employee in an MPN that does not include an ancillary

interpreter provider service, the injured worker shall select and arrange for the presence of a

certified interpreter in the required language, who is available at reasonable times and within a

reasonable geographic area.

This section is problematic for injured workers that are not represented as the injured worker

without assistance from the employer will have no idea how to find or arrange for an interpreter.

Therefore, as state in our general comments, we believe the employer should be responsible

for arranging for interpretation services for unrepresented injured workers. We therefore

suggest the following change:

(2) If injured worker is a covered employee in an MPN that does not include an

ancillary interpreter provider service then:

a) If the injured worker is unrepresented, the injured worker employer shall select and

arrange for the presence of a certified interpreter in the required language, who is

available at reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area; and

b) If the injured worker is represented, the injured worker shall select and arrange for the

presence of a certified interpreter in the required language, who is available at reasonable

times and within a reasonable geographic area.

6. Section 9931(e)(3) talks about selecting a interpreter from the ancillary service provider list. It is

not clear what is intended by a “ancillary provider list”. Under Section 9767.3(c)(3), an MPN is

permitted to list mobile service providers by a single vendor name and not by location of each

and every provider. When MPNs contract for interpreter services, they are contracting for mobile

services, not brick and mortar services. We would like to be sure that a single listing is acceptable

and the injured worker would contact the vendor to obtain a listing of interpreters in the


61

geographic area. However, as noted, Zenith believes the payor/employer should be the one

selecting the interpreter, not the injured worker. If that is not changed, this section should

function like other mobile services that are by referral only.

The MPN regulations include access requirements that apply only when primary treating providers

or specialists are providing medical treatment. Interpreters are not providing medical services and

are mobile. Unlike treating providers, injured workers are not expected to have ongoing

relationships with the interpreter and the interpreter should be neutral to all parties as their job

is to accurately interpret what is being said, not to provide their own opinions or thoughts on

matters or to provide guidance or advice. Therefore, Zenith recommends this provision be

removed or modified to allow a single vendor name listing, with referral to an interpreter vendor.

We also believe it is better to allow the employer to select the interpreter, not the injured worker,

and especially when the injured worker is not represented by counsel.

7. Section 9931(e)(4) again places the burden of selecting an interpreter on the injured worker who

is ill equipped to do so unless represented by an attorney. Therefore, Zenith recommends that the

provision be modified to require the employer to select an appropriate interpreter. Additionally

subsection (e) is addressing interpreters for medical appointments. Employers may consent to

theuse of a provisionally certified interpreter which again is a reason to allow MPNs to include

provisionally certified interpreters in the MPN and to allow the employer to select a qualified

interpreter. Use of provisionally certified interpreters also addresses the issue of a shortage of

certified interpreters in certain geographic areas.

8. Section 9931(3)(f) and (g) overcomplicate the system. Subsection (f) only addresses situations

where the injured worker is represented but not where the injured worker is not represented. If

unrepresented injured workers retain the right to select an interpreter they will still need to

notify affected parties who they have selected. Additionally, neither section has a time frame for

selection, it only states notice has to be given within two days of selection. If time allows,

selection should be made at least a week prior to the event to give all parties time to take the

actions needed to ensure attendance of the interpreter.

Whoever selects the interpreter should be required to provide notice but should be allowed to do

so by any appropriate method including mail, email, text, telephone, voice message or online portal

system based on the circumstances. There is no reason mail or provider portal systems cannot

be used to provide notices to parties and interpreters if arrangements are made far enough in

advance. Portal notice systems with contracted providers are actually faster and more efficient

than many other methods of communication and allow unique tracking tools to be used throughout

the service process. This includes billing, time keeping, etc. We recommend simplifying these

sections to be consistent on types of notice to be given and by taking the burden off an

unrepresented injured worker to select an interpreter. We also encourage consideration of growth

in technology as new tools become available such as injured worker applications that allow claims


62

administrators to communicate securely in real time with injured workers. Therefore, we ask

that the method of notice not be restricted as it hampers the ability to use new technology as it

becomes available. This could include use of video interpreter services much in the way

telemedicine is being used for medical appointments. Finally, we believe the interpreter should

be selected by the employer/payor except for court appearances where the injured worker is

represented by counsel.

9. Section 9931(3)(h) states that if a party who is responsible for arranging an interpreter is unable

to do so or the employer fails to give notice, the other party can arrange for the services. However,

in many situations the injured worker is responsible for arranging the interpreter. Therefore if

the injured worker or their attorney fail to give required notice, then the employer should also be

able to arrange an interpreter with no penalty of double payment. Additionally, we again believe

it is not reasonable to burden unrepresented injured workers with selection of interpreters and

corresponding notice requirements. To simplify management and notices, we again recommend a

system where the employer selects the interpreter and provides notices unless the interpreter is for

a hearing where the injured worker is represented by counsel.

10. Section 9931(3)(h)(2) makes it the hearing officers responsibility to select an interpreter from

present interpreters if neither party selected one. However, our experience is that if neither party

arranged for an interpreter or the interpreter does not appear, the parties are generally able to agree

to an interpreter that happens to be present in the court room. We recommend that prior this

section be modified to first allow the parties to agree on an interpreter and only if the parties

cannot agree would the hearing officer be responsible for selecting an interpreter. This would

minimize the hearing officer’s duties in this regard and not prejudice either party.

11. Section 9931(i) currently states:

(i) Employer Fee Obligation for Non-Compliance with Notice Requirement. If the

employer was responsible for selecting the interpreter and fails to comply with the

notice requirement of subdivision (g), and two interpreters are present at the event,

one selected by the employer and one selected by the injured worker, hearing

officer, or medical provider, as provided in subdivision (h), the interpreter

provided by the injured worker, hearing officer or medical provider shall be used

and the employer shall be obligated to pay for both interpreters for the full time of

the interpretation.

While we do not disagree with this provision we believe it is not complete and should be

modified to add:

If the employer complied with provided notice and two interpreters appear at the event, the


63

employer shall be responsible only for payment of the interpreter arranged by the employer.

12. Section 9932 should be clarified to note that this provision will not apply in instances where the

employer has consented to use a provisionally certified interpreter as allowed under the

regulations or limit it’s application to court hearings and proceedings. Otherwise, it creates a

burden with no corresponding benefit. Additionally, the provision should be clarified to

address what is meant by “three interpreter service providers”. MPNs may have contract with a

single service provider who in turn has contracts with multiple individual interpreter services

entities. We believe the intent is that when a certified provider is required by law and regulation,

the responsible party must contact at least three entities that provide certified interpreter services

in the applicable language. Again, we believe this should apply only to court hearings and

proceedings, not medical appointments. If all three state they cannot attend, then the other

provisions will apply. We do however question the mileage requirements especially if the payor

is the one arranging the services. If a certified interpreter is willing to travel the distance

required and accept fee schedule or contract rates, why impose a travel limit? We also assume

that subsection (d) is designed for proof to the court that contacts were actually made and that

the written record is not required to be retained after the date of the hearing or event at issue.

13. Sections 9934(a) - (c) currently state:

(a) Certified interpreters in the languages set forth in section 9930 shall be used at

medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations except when a certified interpreter

cannot be present, after meeting the requirements of sections 9931 and 9932.

(b) Provisionally certified interpreters shall not be used for interpretation in the certified

languages set forth in section 9930(b), unless the employer has given prior consent to use the

interpreter in addition to the requirements of subdivision (a).

(c) The medical provider shall determine if a proposed provisionally certified interpreter has

sufficient skill to be provisionally certified to interpret in the required language.

As written, the subsections (a) and (b) to do not tie together since (a) makes to clearly address

the right of the employer to consent to use of a provisionally certified interpreter for services.

Because the employer has the right to consent to a provisionally certified interpreter, the employer

should have a right to use one whenever appropriate to do so and provide a list to the injured

worker to select from if the injured worker has the right to select the interpreter. As noted in our

general comments, Zenith believes the employer and payor should select the interpreter in all

settings except a hearing setting. This will allow better management and simplify workflows.

Additionally, employers should be permitted to given prior consent to use of a provisionally

certified interpreter through inclusion of the interpreters in the employers selected MPN.


64

In this particular provision Zenith recommends the following change to address this issue:

(a) Certified interpreters in the languages set forth in section 9930 shall be used at

medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations except when a certified interpreter

cannot be present, after meeting the requirements of sections 9931 and 9932 unless the

employer has consented to use of a provisionally certified interpreter pursuant to subsection (b)

of this provision.

(b) Provisionally certified interpreters shall not be used for interpretation in the certified

languages set forth in section 9930(b), unless the employer has given prior consent to use the

interpreter in addition to the requirements of subdivision (a). The employer may consent to use

of provisionally certified interpreters by including provisionally certified interpreters in the

employer’s selected MPN or by approving use of a provisionally certified interpreter on an

individual basis at the time a request is submitted to the employer.

Subsection (c) creates other challenges. Medical providers are not linguistic experts. They are

and should be focused on the provision of medical care and treatment. In many cases the

provider may

not be proficient enough in a language to judge the competency of an interpreter. However,

the provider should be given an alternative to address suspected poor interpretation services.

Rather than creating an affirmative duty on the provider to determine skill sets of an interpreter,

the provider should be given a mechanism to address complaints. Therefore, we suggest the

following language modifications:

(c) If the medical provider has reason to suspect that The medical provider shall

determine if a proposed provisionally certified interpreter has does not have sufficient skill

to provide services be provisionally certified to interpret in the required language, the

physician shall notify the party that selected the provisionally certified interpreter. Upon

notification the selecting party shall provide an alternate certified or provisionally certified

interpreter. The party that arranged for the provisionally certified interpreter services will

also investigate and confirm the skill sets of the provisionally certified interpreter prior

to selecting that interpreter for any future interpreting services.

This will allow the provider to focus on medical care while placing a burden on the selecting party

to verify the interpreter’s credentials and to not use the interpreter in the future unless verification

of the individual’s skills are confirmed and used only when appropriate. Subsection (d) and (e)

will assist the provider in determining whether or not they believe they should report a concern or

not along with the actual services rendered, but removes an affirmative duty from the provider to

make a determination each and every time an interpreter is used.


65

14. Computation of Fees. Zenith continues to have significant concern over the ability of interpreters

to receive pay from multiple clients for work performed during the same time frame. We are

also concerned about use of translators when the services are not needed. Nothing addresses this

issue in the proposed regulation. This week Zenith was ordered by a court to pay for translation

services for a Spanish speaking injured worker who met with a Spanish speaking attorney at the

attorney’s office for purposes of reading a deposition. Both are fluent in Spanish. Yet the court

issued a conditional order for payment of the interpreter fees. Zenith is objecting to the conditional

order on the basis that services were not needed since both parties were fluent in Spanish, however,

this type of event is not uncommon and creates unnecessary time and expense for Zenith and the

court all because an interpreter service billed for an interpreter when none was required. There

should be some method to determine when services are required.

Additionally, under Labor Code 4600(g) employers are required to pay for interpreter services

only “if the injured employee cannot effectively communicate with his or her treating physician

because he or she cannot proficiently speak or understand the English language.” If both the

injured employee and the physician speak the same language they can “effectively

communicated” and no interpreter services should not be needed or provided. Simply put,

employers should not be obligated to pay for services when the injured worker and the party they

are working with are both fluent in the same language and can “effectively communicated.” See

also comment #2 above.

Finally, we encourage the state to consider alternatives that will provide quality services at

reduced costs to the system, such as interpretation services through video where the interpreter

performs the service from a remote location. This alternative should be available as an option

to all parties and may allow better services within remote areas of the state. Video and telephonic

depositions are allowed in many areas and courts and there is no reason not to also allow

video and telephonic translation services as are allowed by Medicare. This would allow billing

for the actual time spent providing a service (or some other reasonable time increment) and help

avoid unnecessary costs and expense to the system.

15. Section 9936(a)(2) should be modified so that regardless of when deposition preparation takes

place the fees for deposition and deposition preparation are tied together. This will avoid issues

in the future, discourage deliberate separation of deposition preparation from the deposition and

still provide fair compensation to the interpreter. We therefore suggest the following change to

the last sentence of this subsection:

Interpreter time for preparation of the deponent immediately prior to the deposition shall

be included in this time and paid accordingly.

16. Section 9936(a)(3)(A) and B: These sections are confusing and appear overly complicated.


66

Please clarify intent. Considering applying an hourly rate based on the actual time worked

beyond 8 hours for the deposition with billing completed in 15 minute increments. It should

also be clear that if the interpreter works more than 8 hours but not on the same matter, then this

billing rule does not apply. This would only apply if they exceed 8 hours on a single matter in

the same day. If the interpreter worked 1 ½ hours beyond 8 hours, they would receive 1 ½ hours

of pay at the applicable hourly rate.

17. Section 9936(a)(4) states:

(4) Cancellation fees. Unless the party responsible for providing for the interpreter notifies the

interpreter of a cancellation at least 24 hours prior to the time the service is to be provided, the

interpreter shall be paid no less than the minimum one-half day fee as set forth in section 9937.

It shall be the obligation of the injured worker to make every reasonable attempt to notify the

employer in sufficient time of any need to cancel the services of an interpreter.

The employer should not be held responsible for payment when the applicant attorney or injured

worker are responsible for selecting and arranging attendance of the interpreter at an event.

Therefore, this should be modified to add:

Whichever party was responsible for selecting and arranging for the presence of the interpreter

shall be responsible for paying the interpreter when the interpreter is not notified of the

cancellation and the party causing the cancellation has notified the party responsible for

selecting and arranging the interpreter’s presence in a timely manner.

Also, many interpreters sit all day at a court and are able to arrange work. Therefore, this

provision should not apply unless it is for an event where the interpreter has no other opportunity

if that specific matter is cancelled.

What happens when the injured worker is responsible but fails to notify the interpreter? For

example, section 9931(b) currently places this burden on the injured worker. Therefore, they

would be the party responsible for providing the interpreter and giving notice. This could be

addressed through an attestation by the interpreter that gets submitted with the bill for the

cancellation which states the interpreter was unable to perform other duties or work for the

period of time at issue, has no other income for that period of time and therefore has suffered an

economic loss due to the lack of cancellation.

18. Section 9936(b)(2) states:

The fees payable for interpreter services at medical treatment appointments or medical-legal

evaluations shall be paid based upon the rates set forth in section 9937, and shall be computed


67

based upon the total number of interpretations at medical treatment appointments or medical-

legal evaluations conducted during the same one-hour or two-hour time period, respectively.

The intent in this section is not clear when read with the corresponding medical appointment

rates contained in Section 9937 MTI-1 for example. If we are reading this correctly, an interpreter

could have 4 medical appointments set with a physician in the first hour of business and would

get paid

$386. 00 for that one hour of work because they had 4 translations in that one hour period. After

that, they would bill in 15 minute increments. But does that apply only if all translations are

arranged by the same employer? This section is not clear and if we are calculating it correctly

has an unfair impact to the early appointments. We suggest doing a straight hourly billing

rate in 15 minute increments for all settings and eliminate all the half-day, full-day rates and

other minimums. The straight billing rate is the way the majority of world bills for services and

translation services should be no different. This would also work for services provided remotely

if available and agreed to by the parties. The same should apply to rates for med-legal translation

services under subsections (b)(3)- (5).

19. Section 9936(b)(6) – same comments as under #18 above.

20. Section 9936(c)(1) – same comments as above under #19. We believe an hourly rate should

apply and be billed in 15 minute increments with no minimums or special rules for application.

Just a simple straight billing calculation based on actual time spent performing the services. The

rate can be set to build in administrative travel and other expenses but this type of billing would

be much easier to manage, track and handle. It would also lead to consistency regardless of the

setting in which services were provided and ease administrative burdens and reduce complexity

of the schedule and regulations.

21. Section 9936(c)(2) states:

(2) If there is a fee agreement between an interpreter service provider and employer for a

greater or lesser fee than set forth in section 9937, as permitted by subdivision (d), the

interpreter shall bill that employer based upon the agreement. However that fee agreement shall

not be used to compute the total fee amount referenced in subdivision (c)(1) to be billed to

employers with whom the interpreter service provider does not have a separate fee agreement.

And Section 9936(d) states:

(d) Nothing in this section precludes an agreement for payment of interpreter services,

made between the interpreter or agency for interpreting services and the employer, regardless

of whether or not such payment is less than, or exceeds, the fees set forth in this section and

section 9937.


68

While we fully agree with the rights of parties to enter agreements outside of applicable fee

schedules we are concerned about potential abuse in this situation because these are billing

codes. While Section 9937 does state the codes and rates “shall be used” to compute billing for

interpreter services, it does not state the interpreter is required to follow them. It appears to be up

to the bill review entity to reduce the interpreter bills using Section 9937 as a benchmark. This

opens the doors for interpreters to refuse to provide services unless contracting demands are

met and can lead to the system being held hostage. We have seen this in the past both in

California and Florida. To avoid this situation, we again recommend that Section 9937 be made

an Official Interpreter Fee Schedule that states fees for services shall be paid at the fee schedule

rate or the provider’s contracted rate with the payor.

22. Section 9937 There are indications that unless this section is clearly labeled as a fee schedule,

some parties are prepared to argue they are not obligated to follow it since it a suggested billing

guideline only and not part of an Official Fee Schedule. The argument we are hearing is that

because Section 9937 only sets out billing codes and rates for computation purposes, the

interpreters can still bill whatever amount they want or refuse to provide services at those payment

levels. We suggest adding language that states this is a fee schedule and employers are

obligated to pay either the Official Interpreter Fee Schedule amount or applicable contract rate

if the employer has a contract with the interpreter. The table title would be changed to Official

Interpreter Fee Schedule.

Again as a general comment, we believe the rate schedule is overly complicated and could be

greatly simplified by applying hourly billing rates in 15 minute increments for all categories with

a one hour minimum but disallow the practice of billing the minimum to multiple parties

when services are provided to multiple parties at the same location on the same day during

the same one hour time period. If services for a single entity or event go beyond 8 hours a day,

the rate could increase to time and half still billed in 15 minute increments. This would

greatly simply billing and administration of the services. It would also support other forms of

service such as telephonic or video interpreters and help reduce overall costs while paying entities

for services actually performed.

If the half day, full day approach is retained, then issues continue to exist with interpreters being

able to bill multiple entities for the same time slot. This simply is not efficient or fair to

employers/payors. Having the multiple column rate schedule overcomplicates the billing system

and increases administrative oversight necessary to review the correctness of bills and to process

the bills. If this approach is retained, a billing form may need to be created to help interpreters

bill the correct amounts for the correct services. We also note that the rates proposed are higher

than those currently in place for Federal Court interpreters which we believe are:


69

Certified and Professionally Qualified Interpreters

Full Day: $418 Half

Day: $226

Overtime: $59 per hour or part thereof

Language Skilled (Non-Certified) Interpreters

Full Day: $202 Half

Day: $111

Overtime: $35 per hour or part thereof

_____________________________________________________________________________

Denise Niber, Claims and Medical Director April 13, 2018

California Workers’ Compensation Institute

Recommended revisions to the proposed regulation are indicated by underscore and strikeout.

Comments and discussion by the Institute are identified by italicized text.

Priority Consideration:

As a primary recommendation, the Institute urges the DWC to consider simply charging the

employer with the duty of selecting and arranging all necessary interpretation services. Indeed,

the employer is already arranging for the interpreter in most situations — even in the case of

medical treatment appointments. Keeping the obligation for all interpreting services with the

employer would greatly simplify and streamline the process, not to mention these regulations. It

would also avoid many problems that are likely to arise with non-English speaking injured

workers (especially if unrepresented) being tasked with either interpreter selection or selection

and arrangement.

General Considerations:

If designation of the employer as the responsible party for all selection and scheduling of

interpreters is not an option, the Institute suggests a two-track system (represented and

unrepresented). While a less-optimal solution than the employer-only obligation for interpreting

services outlined above, implementation of a two-track system would be less problematic than the

complexity of the currently proposed process. For example, tasking an unrepresented non-

English speaking injured worker with the administrative burden of selecting a qualified


70

interpreter, and then timely communicating that selection to the employer, is a situation ripe for

confusion -- one where there will likely be increased cancellations of hearings and medical

appointments, duplicative interpreter arrangements, and even potential abuse.

Our members are concerned about the availability of certified interpreters, especially for medical

appointments. For certain populations of injured workers and/or certain industries where the need

for interpreters is great, the proposed requirements for establishing that a certified interpreter

cannot be present may prove to be overly burdensome.

Exotic languages are not addressed. Definitions, fees, and procedures for exotic languages need

to be identified.

Recommend that “Additional Time Slot” fees and codes be made available only for Hearings and

medical treatment appointments, and not medical-legal evaluations.

In the case of computation of fees for multiple hearings, appointments, and exams, it is

recommended that the regulations be written in a way so as to discourage over-scheduling.

Possible options:

o Cap the number of interpreter appearances per each half-day / full day;

o Cap the fees an interpreter can receive for any given work day;

o Provide a sliding scale of fees for each additional hearing/appointment in the same time slot

(e.g.: 75%, 50%, 25%);

o Require identification of the “time period” for purposes of listing multiple interpretations;

o Reduce amount payable in the case of cancelled interpretations, where other services are

provided in the same time slot.

Specific Recommendations:

Recommendation:

§34. Appointment Notification and Cancellation.

(c) The QME shall state in the notification whether a Certified Interpreter as described in Labor Code

section 5811 and subject to the provisions of California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 9930(b) and

9934 is required, and, if so, the language to be used. The employer shall select and arrange for the

presence of the interpreter as provided in California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9931(d) and pay

the allowable fees cost of the interpreter as provided for in section 5811 of the Labor Code. The

employer is not obligated to arrange for an interpreter when it disputes the reasonableness and necessity

of the QME evaluation and issues a written objection to the QME and employee or his/her agent, if

represented, at least 48 hours in advance of the evaluation.


71

Discussion:

Labor Code section 5811(b)(2) refers to interpreter “fees” and limits the employer’s obligation to pay

interpreter fees to those that are “reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred…, provided they are in

accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the administrative director.” Changing “cost” to

“allowable fees” maintains regulatory consistency with the plain language of the statute.

The addition of the sentence at the end of §34 is recommended to avoid frictional costs in the event that

the employer objects to the evaluation itself. When the employer disputes the reasonableness and

necessity of a QME evaluation, the employer should not have the burden of arranging for an interpreter,

or the obligation of paying for the medical-legal expense of that interpreter.

Recommendation:

§9930. Definitions

(b) “Certified interpreter for medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluation” is an

individual selected to interpret at a medical treatment appointment or a medical-legal evaluation in one of

the following the languages: Spanish, Tagalog, Arabic, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese,

Vietnamese, American Sign Language, Eastern Armenian, Western Armenian, Khmer, Korean,

Mandarin, Punjabi, or Russian, or other languages authorized or designated pursuant to Government

Code sections 11435.40, 11435.35, and 68562; and meets one of the following requirements:

(1) Is a certified interpreter for hearings and depositions under subdivision (a) of this section; or

(2) Is listed as a certified as a medical interpreter by the California Department of Human Resources as

appears on the State Personnel Board website at http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/InterpreterListing; or

Discussion:

Recommended changes to 9930(b) are to correct syntax and provide clarity.

Recommendation:

§9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter.

Interpreters, when required, shall be selected as set forth in this section.

Discussion Additional language added for clarity.

Recommendation:

§9931(b) Hearings.: If represented, the The injured worker shall select and arrange for the presence of an

interpreter. If unrepresented, the employer shall select and arrange for the presence of the interpreter.

http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/InterpreterListing


72

Discussion The additional language is required for implementation of the alternative two-track system.

Recommendation:

§9931(e) (1) If the injured worker is not a covered employee, as defined in section 9767.1(a)(2), in a Medical

Provider Network (MPN), and the injured worker is represented, the injured worker shall select and arrange

for the presence of the interpreter.; if the injured worker is not represented, the employer shall select and

arrange for the presence of the interpreter.


Recommendation:

§9931(e)

(2) If the injured worker is a covered employee in an MPN that does not include an ancillary interpreter

provider service and the injured worker is represented, the injured worker shall select and arrange for the

presence of a certified interpreter in the required language, who is available at reasonable times and within

a reasonable geographic area.; if the injured worker is not represented, the employer shall select and arrange

for the presence of the interpreter.


Recommendation:

§9931(e)

(3) If the injured worker is a covered employee in an MPN that includes an ancillary interpreter provider

service that offers certified interpreting services in the language required, and there are certified

interpreters in that language available at reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area, and

the injured worker is represented, the injured worker must select and utilize an individual interpreter or

interpreter service from the ancillary service provider list. If individual interpreters are listed by the

interpreter provider service, the injured worker shall choose which certified interpreter to use. All

interpreters provided through an MPN ancillary interpreting service must be certified as defined in

section 9930(b). In the case of the represented covered employee, the The employer shall arrange for the

presence of the employee- selected interpreter at the medical treatment appointment; if the covered

employee is unrepresented, the employer shall select and arrange for the MPN-based interpreter.


Recommendation:


73

§9931(e)


service that does not have certified interpreters available in the required language, at reasonable times and

within a reasonable geographic area, and the injured worker is represented, the injured worker shall select

and arrange for the presence of a certified interpreter in the required language outside the MPN, who is

available at reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area; if the injured worker is not

represented, the employer shall select and arrange for the certified interpreter.


Recommendation:

§9931

(f)Employee Obligation to Notify Employer of Interpreter Selection and Scheduling. Where If the

represented injured worker is responsible for selecting but not arranging for the interpreter, the injured

worker or his/her agent, if represented, as delineated in this section, the represented injured worker or

his/her agent , if represented, shall promptly select the interpreter and notify the employer by email or fax

transmission, within two business days of the selection, so the employer has sufficient time to arrange for

the presence of the interpreter. If the event is set to occur within the next two business days, the injured

worker or his/her agent represented injured worker shall notify the employer of the selection of the

interpreter, via fax transmission on the same day the arrangement for the event was made. Where it is the

represented injured worker’s responsibility to select and arrange for an interpreter, the injured worker

through his/her agent shall notify the employer by email or fax transmission of the interpreter selection

and scheduled arrangement within two business days of the selection.

(g)Employer Obligation to Notify Injured Worker of Interpreter Selection. If the employer is responsible

for selecting the interpreter, the employer shall notify the injured worker or his/her agent, if represented,

at least two business days prior to the time for the interpretation medical-legal evaluation, employer-

noticed deposition or, in the case of an unrepresented injured, the medical treatment appointment

necessitating an interpreter, that a qualified interpreter has been selected and will be present at the event.;

this notification shall be by telephone (with voice mail message if no answer), e-mail, mail, or text

message fax transmission. If the medical treatment appointment is scheduled to occur within two

business days of the employer becoming aware that an interpreter is needed, the employer shall

immediately contact the employee, in a manner listed above, that a qualified interpreter has been selected

and will be present at the event.


The problem of duplicative interpreter scheduling largely arises from a lack of communication.

Therefore, it is recommended that this section be modified to require that the employee (or agent of

employee) be required to provide notification of the selection of an interpreter, as well the actual


74

scheduling of an interpreter when applicable. This requirement can also avoid potential abuses from

interpreters who may seek to be selected based solely on their ready availability at hearings and provider

offices.

It is recommended that “text” be deleted as a service option. While the Institute applauds the Division’s

efforts to modernize the process, inclusion of text notifications would require that each party maintain

mobile devices for this purpose; it also ignores the potential costs associated with text messaging, and

does not consider the possibility of misdirected messages where one party’s mobile device is lost or

replaced.

The option for notification by mail should be reinstated as the common standard. The Institute believes

that it is especially important to include fax as an option given the listed time constraints. Claims

administrators are accustomed to looking at faxes on a priority basis, since RFAs are often received via

facsimile, and typically arrange for backup for their incoming faxes when they are absent from the office.

The proposed language regarding the obligation to notify is confusing. While subsection (g) defines the

employer’s obligation when an interpreter has been selected by the employer, it also includes the

employer’s obligation even when it has not selected the interpreter. The use of the word “selection” in

the heading of (g) is confusing in this context. We believe that the Division’s intent in (g) is to address

the obligation to notify the employee of the scheduling of an interpreter -- regardless of whether it is

treatment or a medical-legal appointment, and regardless of who made the selection of the interpreter.

The process should be reconciled between subsections e, f, and g.

Recommendation:

§9931

(h)(1) If the party responsible for selecting the interpreter is unable to arrange for the presence of a

qualified interpreter, or if the represented employee or employer fails to provide the notice required by

subdivision (f) or (g), respectively, the other party may arrange for a qualified interpreter to be present

and that interpreter shall be used.

(i) Employer Fee Obligation for Non-Compliance with Notice Requirement. If the employer was is

responsible for selecting the interpreter and fails to comply with the notice requirement of subdivision

(g), and two interpreters are present at scheduled and appear for the event, one selected by the employer

and one selected by the injured worker, hearing officer, or medical provider, as provided in subdivision

(h), the interpreter provided by the represented injured worker, hearing officer or medical provider shall

be used and the employer shall be obligated to pay for both interpreters for the full time of the

interpretation, subject to the additional rates provided for under section 9936(c).


Other additions are made for purposes of clarity.


75

Reference to fee obligation in the case of selection of an interpreter by a hearing officer and medical

provider should be deleted from this section as its inclusion conflates two separate issues.

One issue is where two interpreters are scheduled and appear due to the employer’s failure to

provide the notice required in (g), in which case the employer is obligated to pay for both

interpreters.

The other issue is when no interpreter has been scheduled by either party, and the alternate

selection procedure discussed in (h)(2) applies in which a hearing officer or medical provider

chooses an interpreter.

Recommendation:

§9932

(e) If the party initially responsible for selecting the certified interpreter is unable arrange for a certified

interpreter, after exhausting the requirements of this section, the party may select a provisionally certified

interpreter; if a provisionally certified interpreter is not available, the alternative selection process of

section 9931(h) shall apply. If the employer is the party initially responsible and fails to comply with the

notice requirements of section 9931(g), the provisions of section 9931(i) also apply.

Discussion:

As currently drafted, if a certified interpreter is not available the employer is relegated to the Alternative

Selection Process under 9931(h) and loses all opportunity to select the interpreter. The Institute

presumes that the Division intends for the option of a provisionally certified interpreter to be selected by

the employer after compliance with the required efforts to obtain a certified interpreter.

As noted in our General Considerations above, while the Institute supports the Division’s preference for

certified interpreters, we are concerned about the requirement of documentation for efforts to secure a

certified interpreter. For certain populations of injured workers and/or certain industries where the need

for interpreters is great, the proposed requirements for establishing that a certified interpreter cannot be

present may prove to be overly burdensome.

Recommendation:

§9934.

(b) Provisionally certified interpreters shall not be used for interpretation in the certified languages set

forth in section 9930(b), unless the employer has given prior written consent to use the interpreter in

addition to the requirements of subdivision (a).

Discussion:

Recommend adding “written” before “consent” to minimize unnecessary conflicts.

Recommendation:

§9936


76

(a)(4) Cancellation fees. Unless the party responsible for providing for the interpreter notifies the

interpreter of a cancellation at least 24 hours prior to the time the service is to be provided, the interpreter

shall be paid no less than the minimum one-half day fee as set forth in section 9937. It shall be the

obligation of the injured worker to make every reasonable attempt to notify the employer in sufficient

time of any need to cancel the services of an interpreter. If the injured worker fails to appear at an event

for which an interpreter has been arranged, payment of the interpreter fees shall be allowed as a credit

against the employee’s recovery.

(b)(4) Interpretations performed at second or successive medical treatment appointments or medical-legal

evaluations that overlap with the first interpretation time period, but are not completed during the first

interpretation time period, are considered separate, billable, time periods, to which the interpreter is

entitled to bill an additional one-hour or two-hour fee, respectively.

(b)(6) Cancellation fees. Unless the party responsible for providing for an interpreter at a medical

treatment appointment or the medical-legal evaluation notifies the interpreter of a cancellation at least 24

hours prior to the time the service is to be provided, the interpreter shall be entitled to be paid no less than

the equivalent of one hour of compensation for each cancelled medical treatment appointment and no less

than the equivalent of two hours of compensation for each cancelled medical-legal exam. If the injured

worker fails to appear at an event for which an interpreter has been arranged, payment of the interpreter

fees shall be allowed as a credit against the employee’s recovery.

Discussion:

The Institute recommends the addition of language in §9936(a)(4) and (b)(6) allowing costs for

interpreter services that are cancelled due to the injured worker’s failure to appear, in order to avoid

employer liability for services that are not actually rendered.

Additional language is suggested in (b)(4) for purposes of clarity.

§9938. Interpreter Billing Requirements for Payment.

(12) A declaration by the interpreter stating: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the information


belief, and that I have not violated Labor Code section 3215.” The declaration shall be signed and dated

by the interpreter and indicate the county and state in which it was signed.

Discussion:

The additional requirement for interpreters to verify that no improper consideration has been paid or received

can be an important facet of the Division’s ongoing anti-fraud effort.

____________________________________________________________________________________


77

Candelario de Funes April 13, 2018

I have been an interpreter in the area of workers’ compensation in Los Angeles County for nearly 30

years, and during that time I have learned that there is one overriding problem in this field: the

shortchanging of non-English speaking injured workers by the use of unqualified people as interpreters

while these workers are trying to recover from the consequences of their injuries. If these rules do not fix

this problem, this is just a charade to conceal this aberration even further.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Rosario Palmer, #100716 April 13, 2018

Roman Garcia, #100584

Joyce Altman, #300624

Joyce Altman Interpreters

With regard to the MPN language in 9767.3 that all LANGUAGE SERVICE PROVIDERS (AGENCY)

be included in all Ancillary Service Provider Network. As noted in a poll taken on April 7, 2018 of

approximately 60 Interpreters not one was approved on any Ancillary Service Provider Network, nor

have any invitations been extended or applications been approved.

9930(e) to be changed to 7 hours, this allows for contemplation of two 10 minute breaks, a lunch

break, along with that of travel time to next assignment or in the alternative that a half day is that of

8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. or that of 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Strike (k)and (l) in their entirety

(m) ii to state “Unless said services are required by a Non-Certifiable language”

Proposed 9930(k) – Travel time means the time an Interpreter actually travels to and from the place of

service at the rate of $15.00 per quarter hour or portion thereof.

This allows for the contemplation of the ebbs and flows of traffic at the present time. (Please refer to

the previous 9795.3 enacted in 1994)

Mileage payable at the Federal Mileage reimbursement rate.

Proposed 9930(l)- Interpreting Agency-means a business established to provide Interpreting Services

which has access to, contracts with or employs, more than one interpreter.

9931(c)(1)- The Injured Worker shall select and arrange for the presence of an Interpreter for the

preparation of the deponent prior to a deposition, the reading of a deposition transcript to the deponent


78

prior to signing, the reading of prior volumes of deposition transcript in preparation for continuation of a

deposition and that of the interpretation of settlement documents.

This provides for the sanctity of the oldest United States of America’s recognized privileges that for

confidential communications established by between an attorney and its client.

9931(h)(2)(b) that the words “on staff” be stricken and “present “be inserted.

Allowing “on staff” would allow a physician to bill for an Interpreter thus eliminating neutrality and

transparency.

9932(a) and (b) that “Three” be stricken and “Ten” be inserted.

9933(f) be stricken as not feasible due to unforeseen circumstances such as cancellations or the need for

services may arise.

9934(e) Strike entire section.

Refer to Guitron affidavits which shall include time period and that other Interpreting services at

same location. This section unduly places the burden on the physician.

9936(3)(B) that all be stricken after paid and the following substituted: one-half day or full day

interpretation rates as set forth in Section 9937.

As per Guitron, the Certified Interpreter must be given an incentive to be financially feasible in

investing its half or full day commitment. No Certified Interpreter would ever contemplate providing

these services for $56.00 taking into consideration travel time, mileage, toll fees and parking fees.

[See Osuna v Sun View Cal. Wrk. Comp P.D. LEXIS 21]. Why are Interpreter’s services less valuable

for a deposition related event v. an appearance at the WCAB?

Lastly, absent this incentive injured workers would be deprived of this necessary legal service.

9936(6)(c)(1) add language “and same location”

With regard to the Medical Treatment Fees it is unsurmised how the Administrative Director reduces

payment for these authors by greater than 50%. In 1996, the rate was that of $90.00 for the first two

hours or market rate. Utilizing the Department of Industrial Relations History of California

Minimum Wage, the rate of $90.00 given the increases from 1996 to 2018 an Interpreter should be

paid the same increases as Minimum Wage Earners the sum of $222.39 for the first two hours [See

Chart below]. This does not include the imposition of the $150.00 filing fee, the fact that the

Interpreting costs rise and fall with the case of the Injured Worker thus resulting in take nothings. In


79

all instances, where an agency provided said services the Interpreters had been paid thus resulting in

a substantial agency loss.

Furthermore, that the minimum should be that of a 2 hour minimum.

Lastly, why are Interpreters being singled out in pro rating their services? Where a medical provider

may see various patients and bill separately per the Official Medical Fee Schedule absent proration.

Interpreters have not had an increase in pay for medical interpreting services in the Worker’s Comp.

arena in 22 years. Now the DIR proposes to cut our rate in half!

Please see the following attachment (History of California Minimum Wage)

Indicates that a fee of $90 that was in place October 1996 with the minimum wage increase would be

at the rate of $222.39 at the present time.

History of California Minimum Wage

Effective date

Minimum

Wage (for

Employers

with 26

Employees

or More)

Minimum

Wage (for

Employers

with 25

Employees

or Less)

Percentage of

Increase Over

Previous Wage

(26 Employees

or More)

Percentage of

Increase Over

Previous Wage

(25 Employees or

Less)

Amount

in Dollars

of

Percenta

ge

Increase

Total

Dollars of

Percentag

e Increase

January 1, 2018

$11.00/hour $10.50/hour

4.76 percent

5 percent $10.59 $222.39

January 1,

2017

$10.50/hour $10.00/hour

5 percent No Change - -

Effective Date

New Minimum Wage

Old

Mini

mu

m

Wag

e

Amount

of

Wage

Increa

se

Percentage of

Increase Over

Previous Wage

Amount

in Dollars

of

Percenta

ge

Increase

Total

Dollars of

Percentag

e Increase January 1, 2016

$10.00 $9.00 $1.00 11.1. percent

$21.16 $211.78

July 1, 2014

$9.00 $8.00 $1.00 12.5 percent

$21.18 $190.62


80

January 1, 2008

$8.00 $7.50 $0.50 6.7 percent $10.64 $169.44

January 1, 2007

$7.50 $6.75 $0.75 11.1 percent

$15.86 $158.80

January 1, 2002

$6.75 $6.25 $0.50 8.00 percent

$10.59 $142.93

January 1, 2001

$6.25 $5.75 $0.50 8.70 percent

$10.59 $132.34

March 1, 1998

$5.75 $5.15 $0.60 11.65 percent

$12.70 $121.75

September 1, 1997

$5.15 $5.00 $0.15 3.00 percent

$3.1761 $109.05

March 1, 1997

$5.00 $4.75 $0.25 5.26 percent

$5.29 $105.87

October 1, 1996

$4.75 $4.25 $0.50 11.76 percent

$10.58 $100.58

$90.00*

* $90.00 is utilized as the starting rate pursuant to 9795.3

9938(a) add the “Agency”

We request that Interpreters receive an increase in rate every two (2) years, in accordance with the

Consumer Price Index as published by the United States Department of Labor.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Diane Worley April 13, 2018

California Applicants’ Attorneys Association


81

Initially, the quality of communication between non-English speaking injured workers and their treating

doctors, their evaluators, and their attorneys is of paramount importance for equal access to California’s

workers’ compensation system. As advocates for injured workers, we are concerned with the need for

quality, certified language interpreters. We want to ensure that interpreter’s fees are adequate and that

any possibility of interference from insurance carriers or employers to non- English speaking injured

workers having access to the legal process be eliminated in the final draft of these proposed regulations.

§9937. Billing Fees and Codes. The DWC forum currently has comments from several interpreters with varying opinions on adequate

billing rates and billing methodology. CAAA has also heard from a number of interpreters with

suggestions for different billing fees and codes. It is of utmost importance that fees for interpreters are

adequate for their services, but we will let the interpreters recommend revisions to the fees currently

being proposed based on their expertise.

As stated earlier, anything that denies non-English speaking injured workers access to the legal process

must not be part of the final draft of these proposed regulations. Inadequate interpreter fees would deny

access.

We do believe that one-hour minimum billing times for a medical treatment appointment are inadequate.

We recommend this be revised to two hours as set forth in the current regulation in section 9795.3. As

travel time and mileage has been eliminated, interpreter’s fees should not be cut any further as they must

continue to travel long distances for medical appointment translation services without any compensation.

Interpreters at medical appointments lasting less than one hour would have their pay cut by almost 42

percent without this revision.

§9938. Interpreter Billing Requirements for Payment. There is a concern that interpreters who are within an MPN as an ancillary service provider be required to

produce invoices and other documents completed ancillary to the interpreting to all parties in the case.

This requirement could be added as paragraph 12 to §9938 with the subsequent paragraphs renumbered:

“(12) Interpreters who are within an MPN as an ancillary service provider shall produce invoices and

other documents completed ancillary to the interpreting to all parties in the case.”

§9939. Time for Payment; Effective Date. We recommend that the language in §9939 clearly state that all interpreter fee invoices be paid within 60

days, or the unpaid fees shall be subject to penalties under Labor Code section 5814.

We also want to ensure that if Independent Bill Review is used for a dispute on an interpreter’s bill, that

the fees be paid by the insurance company and not the interpreters, as interpreter’s bills are generally

small and it would be prohibitive for them to pursue any dispute otherwise.


82

In conclusion, injured workers’ most basic right to communicate properly with their doctors and lawyers

must be protected in these regulations to maintain the integrity of the workers’ compensation legal

system and all parties’ due process rights.

California’s incredible diversity is one of its greatest assets.

Approximately 40 percent of Californians speak a non-English language at home.

Access is critical not just to guarantee access to justice in our state, but to ensure the legitimacy of our

system of justice and the trust and confidence of Californians in our workers’ compensation system.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Jason Marcus, President April 13, 2018


The California Applicants’ Attorneys Association (“CAAA”) offers the following comments regarding

the draft regulations for the Interpreter Fee Schedule which are currently posted on the DWC Forum.

§9930. Definitions.

Clarification is needed on “daytime” and “evening” hours in subdivision (f). We recommend the

following revisions.

(f) “Half-day" means:

(1) When appearing during normal business hours, 8 am to 5 pm, at any hearing of the appeals board or

an daytime arbitration, for all or any part of either a morning or afternoon session; or

(2) When appearing at a deposition, all or any part of 3.5 hours; or

(3) When appearing at an evening arbitration after 5 pm, all or any part of 3 hours.


Proposed regulation §9931 (a) allows for the use of non-certified individuals to provide interpreting

services. Non-certified individuals are not required to have training in interpreter ethical requirements or

standards of practice, or education in either medical or legal terminology. Demanding that all interpreters

be certified (in the 16 languages that are presently certified) is our only assurance that our client’s rights

will be protected.

In subdivision (c) (1) the party producing the witness for the deposition should be responsible for

providing the interpreter at a deposition consistent with Labor Code section 5811 (b) and 8 CCR section

10564.


83

The selection of the interpreter for an injured worker’s deposition is a very important issue. The

interpreter sits in with the attorney and the injured worker during a privileged conversation preparing for

the deposition. Allowing the noticing party/insurance company to pick an interpreting agency that it has

exclusive contracts with undermines confidence in the process and gives at least the appearance of

impropriety. The interpreter should be selected by the injured worker’s attorney at a deposition as the

party producing the witness consistent with Labor Code section 5811(b).

Further, we recommend that subdivision (c) (2) be revised to delete “prior to signing” and add “for

purposes of correction” to more accurately reflect the practice of deponents reviewing their deposition

transcripts after a deposition.

We also recommend that “immediately” be deleted from (c) (2) as in some circumstances preparation for

the deposition may need to take place the day before to accommodate an injured worker’s schedule.

Our recommended revisions are below.

(c) Depositions.

(1) The party noticing producing the witness for the deposition shall select and arrange for the presence

of an interpreter.


reading of a deposition transcript to the deponent for purposes of correction prior to signing, and the

reading of prior volumes of a deposition transcript in preparation for continuation of a deposition.

While we oppose the level of control by the employer set forth in §9931, we believe at the very least an

injured worker should retain control of the selection of an interpreter at a deposition, including

preparation time with their attorney.

Additionally, in subdivision (e) (3) and (4) when an injured worker must select an interpreter for a

medical appointment from the MPN all interpreters should be individually listed by name in the MPN

Provider list, and not just by the name of the company or service provider. For an injured worker who has

multiple medical appointments they may want the same interpreter to accompany them to all

appointments, and the individual listing by name will allow for this. Further, this will allow the injured

worker to be able to check if the MPN interpreter selected is certified.

Finally, nowhere in the proposed language in §9931 is there any assurance that all communications

between the applicant and his or her attorney remain strictly confidential, despite the involvement of an

interpreter.

The regulations should explicitly state that the interpreter is required to protect the sanctity of the

privilege by refusing to disclose, either directly or indirectly, any communications between the


84

applicant’s attorney and the applicant, and shall not express any opinions, or impressions, that derive

from those communications. These standards should be observed regardless of which party is responsible

for selecting the interpreter.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Robert McLaughlin, President Elect April 13, 2018


As an addendum to the comments provided by Jason Marcus, President of the California Applicants’

Attorneys Association(“CAAA”) I offer the following comments regarding the draft regulations for the

Interpreter Fee Schedule currently posted on the DWC Forum.

Section 9932. Requirements to Establish that a Certified Interpreter Cannot Be Present.

The requirements in subdivision (d) to keep a written record would be extremely burdensome on

unrepresented injured workers. An alternative to this record keeping requirement should be allowed for

unrepresented injured workers.

Additionally, in the last sentence of subdivision (d) “provide” should be “provider”.

§9934. Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Medical Treatment Appointments and

Medical-Legal Evaluations.

In subdivision (e), doctors will now have to include in their medical legal exam report or medical file

detailed information on the interpreter’s services provided that day outside the medical appointment. This

seems unnecessarily complicated and an inefficient use of both the doctor’s and interpreter’s time having

to track this information. What happens if the doctor fails to record this information? Does the interpreter

not get paid? Does the claims administrator have to track down the information?

Subdivisions (d) and (e) should also provide that “The failure of the doctor to note this information in

their medical file or report does not affect admissibility of the medical report.”

§9935. Notice of Right to Interpreter.

In subdivision (a) there is a typographical error in the last sentence which should be corrected as follows

“A party designated with the responsibility to to serve a notice shall include the statement in the notice.”

§9936. Computation of Fees.

In subdivision (a) (2) it is provided that “Interpreter time for preparation of the deponent immediately

prior to the deposition shall be included in this time and paid accordingly.” As sometimes preparation for

the deposition may need to take place the day before to accommodate an injured worker’s schedule we


85

recommend that this sentence be revised to read “Interpreter time for preparation of the deponent

immediately prior to the deposition shall be included in this time and paid accordingly. If deposition

preparation takes place on a prior day then this time may be billed separately from the deposition.”

Subdivision(a)(3)(B) should also be revised to be consistent with our recommended change to §9931 (c)

(2) “Interpreters reading the deponent the deposition prior to signing for purposes of correction...”

In subdivision (b)(3) interpreters are now entitled to a minimum one-hour rate at medical treatment

appointments and a minimum two-hour rate at medical-legal evaluations. The interpreter community has

pointed out to CAAA that interpreters reserve two hours for medical treatment appointments so they are

available to the worker for the duration of an appointment. With a one-hour rate they will now schedule

appointments one after the other and not reserve two hours. There is a wait time many times in a doctor’s

office particularly later in the day. This will cause the applicant to have to wait for a second interpreter to

arrive for the second hour of their medical appointment if the first interpreter has to leave. Subdivision

(b) (3) should be revised to provide for a two-hour rate for both medical treatment appointments and

medical legal evaluations.

In subdivision (c) the term “time periods” is used but in §9937 the term “time slots” is used. For

consistency purposes, “time slots” should also be used in this subdivision.

We recommend that subdivision (d) be deleted in its’ entirety.

There should be NO side fee agreements allowed outside the regulations. This impinges on interpreters

required neutrality if they are paid more by contracting with a specific carrier. If they are paid less, than

the interpreters are being taken advantage of by a carrier who refuses to comply with the fee schedule.

§9937. Billing Fees and Codes.

The DWC forum currently has comments from several interpreters with varying opinions on adequate

billing rates and billing methodology. CAAA has also heard from a number of interpreters with

suggestions for different billing fees and codes. It is of utmost importance that fees for interpreters are

adequate for their services but we will let the interpreters recommend revisions to the fees currently being

proposed based on their direct expertise with billing rates.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Jose Ruiz, Claims Operations Manager April 13, 2018

Claims Medical and Regulatory Division

State Compensation Insurance Fund

State Compensation Insurance Fund appreciates the opportunity to provide input


86

regarding the Division of Workers’ Compensation’s (DWC) proposed regulations on

interpreter fee schedule. The proposed fee schedule should greatly reduce litigation over

the rate of payment for interpreter services that currently is burdening the system. We

appreciate the extensive work that has been expended on these proposed regulations, but

we have some concerns.

Recommended text changes are indicated by underscore for additional language and

strikeout for deleted language. We will use the term “employer” to encompass insurance

carrier, claims administrator, etc.

General

Interpreters, in both the north and the south, have been awarded fees for explanation of

settlement documents to the injured workers in their attorney’s office. State Fund believes

interpretation services for such attorney-client communications, not in the context of a

hearing or deposition, should be considered a cost of doing business for the attorney. The

proposed regulations are silent on this issue. Because of the multiple awards for these

fees, State Fund recommends that the regulations affirmatively state that such

interpretation fees are not authorized. At the very least, State Fund suggests that Section

9937 billing codes HDI-3 and HDI-4 be amended to state that “interpretation at a setting

similar to” a WCAB hearing, does not include in-office discussions, such as to review

settlement documents with the injured worker.


Comment: Section 9931(e) requires the injured worker to select (and also arrange in some cases) an

interpreter for medical treatment appointments on accepted claims and claims under

investigation pursuant to Labor Code section 5402.

Under Labor Code section 4600(f), interpreter services “shall be provided by the

employer.” Section 4600(g) states: “Upon request of the injured employee, the employer

or insurance carrier shall pay for interpreter services.” Given this statutory mandate that

the employer provide interpreting services, the most reasonable interpretation is that the

statute authorizes regulations relating to the employer selecting and arranging for

interpreter services. Having the injured worker select and arrange for the interpreter is

beyond the scope of the statutory authorization.

On policy grounds there is little to no value in burdening the injured worker to select an

interpreter. Employers, especially those with an established Medical Provider Network

(MPN), would be equipped to match the injured workers’ interpreting needs based on


87

various geographical, language, interpreting certification, and scheduling factors. It is

simply more efficient and cost-effective for the employer or insurance carrier to schedule

the appropriate interpreters. Moreover, allowing the injured worker to select a specific

interpreter may inevitable lead to unnecessary confusion and delay due to availability of

the selected interpreters. The proposed regulations will increase confusion, litigation,

and costs to the workers’ compensation system without discernable benefits.

Recommendation:

State Fund recommends truncating section 9931(e) to provide that interpreters to be selected and

arranged by the employer.

Comment:

Having the employer arrange for the interpreter in all cases will eliminate the need for Sections

9931(f)&(g). Labor Code section 4600(g) states that the employer or insurance carrier is responsible for

selecting and arranging the interpreting services, “upon the request of the injured worker”. The injured

should inform the employer that an interpreter is needed and the employer should provide the

interpreter. If the procedure is consistent that the employer will provide the interpreter the short notice

notifications are not necessary. The proposed notification requirement is a cumbersome process

without benefit to the injured worker.

Recommendation:

Section 9931 should simply state that employer or insurance carrier is responsible to select and arrange

for interpreting services.

Comment:

Section 9931(i) requires the employer to pay should two interpreters appear for the same event because

of failure to comply with the notice requirement.

Again, with a clearly set forth procedure that the employer will arrange for the interpreter, the problem

of two interpreters appearing for the same event should be eliminated. If the employee also arranges to

have an interpreter present, that interpreter would be clearly unauthorized and not entitled to

reimbursement.

Recommendation:

State Fund recommends removing section 9931(i) and allowing the employer to select and arrange for

interpreting services, thereby eliminating the possibility of multiple interpreters appearing at an event.

§9932. Requirements to Establish that a Certified Interpreter Cannot Be Present.

Comment:


88

Section 9932(b) and (c) requires at least three interpreter services be contacted to request a certified

interpreters within:

a) (Urban areas) Within 60 minutes driving time or 30 miles distance of the location where the

interpreter services are to be provided, or

b) (Rural areas) Within 90 minutes driving time or 45 miles distance of the location where the

interpreter services are to be provided

If a certified interpreter is not available, the selection of the interpreter reverts to the other side under

Section 9931(h).

Recommendation:

Section 9932 should be revised to state that if the employer cannot find a certified interpreter in the

applicable geographical area, the employer should select a “qualified” interpreter (certified or

provisionally certified) for the event.


Comment:

Sections 9936(a)(4) and 9936(b)(6) are potentially ambiguous regarding the responsibility to pay the

cancellation fees.

Recommendations:

State Fund recommends that Section 9936(a)(4) be amended to:

“(4) Cancellation fees. Unless the party responsible for providing for the interpreter notifies the

interpreter of a cancellation at least 24 hours prior to the time the service is to be provided, the

interpreter shall be paid the party responsible for providing for the interpreter shall be responsible for

paying the interpreter at no less than the minimum one-half day fee as set forth in section 9937.”

Similarly, State Fund recommends that Section 9936(b)(6) be amended to:

“(6) Cancellation fees. Unless the party responsible for providing for an interpreter at a medical

treatment appointment or the medical-legal evaluation notifies the interpreter of a cancellation at least 24

hours prior to the time the service is to be provided, the interpreter shall be entitled to be paid the party

responsible for providing for the interpreter shall be responsible for paying the interpreter at no less the

equivalent of one hour of compensation for each medical treatment appointment cancelled and two

hours of compensation for each medical-legal exam cancelled.”

Comment:

Section 9936(b)(4) allows an interpreter to bill an additional one-hour (for medical treatment

appointments) or two-hour (for medical-legal evaluations) fee for overlaps.

It appears to be a loophole to allow for opportunistic billings. The “first interpretation time period”

must be better defined. Is it the scheduled time period of the interpretation (agreed upon at time of


89

schedule), or is it the actual interpretation time?

Recommendation:

State Fund recommends removal of section 9936(b)(4) and amends section 9936(c)(1) to: “Fee for

interpreter services for the second and each successive interpretation that starts during the same

time period as the initial interpretation…”

Comment:

Section 9936(c)(1) may unintentionally encourage overbilling of interpreting services. It is not

uncommon for an interpreter to provide services at multiple hearings during the same time period at

the appeals board. Often times, an interpreter may provide only 10-15 minutes of services before a

hearing is adjourned or continued. In theory, an interpreter may provide services for numerous

hearings during a half-day, as defined under Section 9930(f).

Per table above, an interpreter may be paid up to $291.43/hour for providing services at 5 hearings.

This is unreasonable and may lead to unnecessary disputes and litigations between the employers and

the interpreting service providers. The argument is similar for medical appointments. As a typical

medical follow-up appointment ranges from 10-15 minutes, it is theoretically possible for an

interpreter to provide service at up to 4 appointments during the one-hour time period.

For overlapping interpretation services, section 9936(c)(1) establishes the fee for each interpretation =

total fee amount divided by number of interpretations done during the same time period. This may

become problematic for verification purposes as each claims administrator does not have access to

interpreting services provided on claims covered by other claims administrators.

Recommendation:

State Fund recommends rapidly diminishing returns to scale for each successive interpretation during

the same time period as the initial interpretation, or a set of maximum billable charges to avoid

overbilling.

Comment:

Section 9936(c)(1) is ambiguous on how the total fee is divided amongst multiple interpretations during

the same time period, when the interpretations are done for different insurance carriers.

Potential fee for a certified interpreter at the appeals board during a 3.5 hour morning

session No. of

hearings

Total Fee

Calculations

Effective Hourly

Rate (3.5 hours) 2 $446.25 $255.00 + $191.25 $127.50/hour 3 $637.50 $255.00 + $191.25 x 2 $182.14/hour 4 $828.75 $255.00 = $191.25 x 3 $236.79/hour 5 $1,020.00 $255.00 + $191.25 x 4 $291.43/hour


90

Recommendation:

State Fund recommends Section 9936(c)(1) to be amended to:

“…The total fee amount owed to the interpreter for all interpretations done during the same time period

is the total of the first interpretation fee plus 75% of that fee for each additional interpretation during the

same period. The total fee amount shall then be divided by the number of interpretations done during the

same time period. The resulting dollar amount is the interpreter fee owed for each interpretation done

during the same time period. The interpreter shall bill each claims administrator based upon the number

of interpretations done for that claim administrator during the same time period the same resulting dollar

amount for each interpretation done during the same time period, unless there is a fee agreement

between an interpreter service provider and employer.


Comment: There appears to be typographical errors for billing codes MTI-1 and MTI-2. The descriptions

read “Interpretation at a medical treatment appointment by a (provisionally) certified interpreter

for medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations”, but interpretation at

medical-legal evaluations is already covered under billing codes MLI-1 and MLI-2.

Recommendations:

State Fund recommends removal of “medical-legal evaluations” on the descriptions for MTI-1 and MTI-

2:

“Interpretation at a medical treatment appointment by a (provisionally) certified interpreter for medical

treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations.

State Fund also recommends additional billing codes for interpreting service cancellation fees pursuant

to Section 9936(a)(4) and Section 9936(b)(6).


Comment: Because it is the intent of this proposed interpreter fee schedule regulation to reduce double billing fees

for multiple interpretations during the same time slot, every bill submitted to the employer for

interpreting services should also contain the service start time and end time for verification purposes.

Recommendations:

State Fund recommends an additional requirement under Section 9938(a) to include the service start time

and end time for verification purposes.

State Fund also recommends the adoption of a standardized bill form for interpreting service bills to


91

include all required information outlined under subsection (a).

________________________________________________________________________________

Carlyle R. Brakensiek, Executive Vice President April 13, 2018

California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery

The California Society of lndustrial Medicine and Surgery reviewed the proposed

Interpreter Fee Schedule regulations and makes the following comments to the Forum for

your consideration:

1. The definition of "medical-legal evaluation" in Section 9930(j) does not appear

broad enough to encompass related events where an interpreter may be needed

such as medical legal consultations and diagnostic testing.

2. On many occasions, our members have commented that they've noticed some

tension between an employer-selected interpreter and the injured worker which

may affect clear and candid communication with the physician. We urge the

Administrative Director to give the injured worker more control over the selection

of the interpreter to facilitate better communication in both medical treatment and

medical-legal settings. See proposed Section 9931.

3. There are often occasions where the employer fails to arrange for the presence of

an interpreter and the treatment or medical-legal appointment has to be

rescheduled. In such situations where neither the injured worker nor the physician

are responsible for the failed appointment, there should be some penalty imposed

on the employer.

4. With regard to provisionally certified interpreters in Section 9934(c), it makes no

sense to require a physician who does not speak the injured worker's language to

"determine if a proposed provisionally certified interpreter has sufficient skill . . .

to interpret in the required language." The physician is not qualified to do that

and it may impose a legal liability on the physician if he/she negligently makes

an incorrect determination.

5. Proposed Section 9934(d) requires a physician to attach a copy of an

interpreter's credential and/or photo identification to the medical-legal exam report

or medical treatment appointment file. Since one's photo identification often

contains information that can facilitate identity theft, this requirement could

expose physicians to invasion of privacy litigation. The physician should only be

required to review the documentation and comment that he/she is satisfied with


92

the authenticity of the interpreter's credentials.

6. Proposed Section 9934(e) imposes an unreasonable burden on physicians to

inquire about the number of interpreting assignments the interpreter may have

performed or scheduled during the same time period. This issue is not of

concern to physicians and they shouldn't be expected to expend valuable face-

to-face time with the patient and interpreter to explore the subject. Please delete

proposed Section 9934(e).

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Anonymous April 13, 2018

I'm responding to the defense attorneys comment regarding multiple appearances by the interpreters. I

find this to be immensely hypocritical when they themselves are guilty of abusing billing practices. The

standard billing practice for firms is to bill between 250 and 300 hours per month.

This is a required amount to be billed, by their associates, to their clients i.e workers comp carriers, from

the defense firms themselves. Associates of these law firms are given incentives such as bonuses if they

bill in excess of the required minimum noted above. That's over $45,000 per month! Do the math 300

hours times 150.00 per hour.

I know for a fact that when they come to court they are guilty of multiple appearances. Workers

compensation physicians also bill multiples. Does that make them guilty too? Why are interpreters being

singled out? Why are interpreters being capped and no other workers comp entity? There is one word to

this answer. DISCRIMINATION!

Defense attorneys feel they can demean interpreters and their livelihoods, only because interpreters do

not require the extensive education that lawyers do. That does not make interpreters unworthy of making

an honest living or deserving of being well compensated for their services. Keep in mind that when

interpreters sign in on multiple cases, they are not paid a full fee. Most of the interpreters are sub-

contracted by agencies and split the fees.

It would be physically impossible for a single interpreter to simultaneously interpret for multiple

applicants at once. Typically multiple attorneys comes out all at once to speak to their clients. How is one

interpreter expected to interpret for multiple persons? It just doesn't make sense. This is why agencies

send multiple interpreters to make sure that everyone is covered.


93

Please take into consideration that the fee that interpreters are paid does not include packages of health

insurance, vacation time or retirement funds, unlike the superior court interpreters who are on a payroll of

the perspective city. In addition, interpreters are expected to pay taxes on the fees that are paid which

ends up being a huge chunk of their livelihoods down the drain.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Leo Schneider April 13, 2018

Thank you for considering the following in your review of interpreter regulations.

The changes made will bring up the following issues:

1. More paperwork, policing, and red tape for all parties involved (from attorney and judges to

interpreters, doctors and more) process more burdensome, time consuming and expensive

2. Litigation will increase, again, making the process more burdensome, time consuming and expensive

3. Limited English Proficient citizens will face an eroded standard of meaningful language access, a civil

right under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

4. Monolingual (and even some bi/multilingual) participants (medical providers, hearing officers, etc) are

not qualified, nor do they have the ability to determine the language proficiency of the provisionally

certified

5. Pro-rating of services and fees penalizes interpreters based on schedules set by the court, and medical

providers. They do not control hours or the location of work, and should not be penalized for it

6. Please offer distinction between more available and scarce language combinations based on volume of

use and geography

Without stringent modifications and the guidance of the interpreter community, I find it very likely that

changes of the nature proposed drive interpreters out of the field, degrade the service and open the state

and other up to civil rights violations law suits such as Lau v. Nichols, 414 US 563 (1974)

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Andres Marques April 13, 2018

State Cert. # 500344

I concur with the comments submitted by CCHI Northern Chapter. I am very disheartened by what I

have seen happening to my fellow colleagues, the interpreting industry, and the interpreting profession

itself. We have seen decent people with small mom and pop businesses fall by the wayside, to give way


94

to the monopoly of our industry where one company has been able to amass over 90% of the

appointments that used to be divided before into many small businesses, and livelihoods have been

lost. The [REDACTED] company has so much business, they can't cover all appointments and whatever

the rest of us cover is never appreciated when we jump into action at the last minute to fill in the void not

covered by this one corporation, only to receive details of payment, as well as denials of authorization to

continue following the patients we just covered. Moreover, we are unable to compete with the

[REDACTED] corporation, because we are not in the MPN, and we are not given the space to offer our

services because we are not given a path to be part of the MPN. We warned you of these and other

terrible consequences, once and again when we participated in different open forums in Oakland and we

begged you to please give us a hand, and it all fell on deaf ears.

One more time I implore upon you the need of you, members of the board, to help our profession and our

livelihoods and give us a chance to compete and survive in such an uneven playing field.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Beatriz Stambuk-Torres April 13, 2018

Spanish Certified Interpreter

I am a national certified interpreter who works in the state of California, and want to raise concerns about

the proposals published by the Division of workers' Compensation about the proposed Interpreter Fee

Schedule. I hope my concerns are well noted and taken into consideration because the alternative can

result in severe violations of civil rights to the injured worker and all those in support of the wellbeing of

injured workers in the state of California.

My first concern, is in regards to 9767.3 Requirements for a MPN. It is pertinent that interpreters be

notified when an MPN chooses to provide interpreting ancillary services, and a language to support this

amendment should be added.

My second concern is in regards to S9930. It is important that interpreters listed on the State Personnel

Board website who possess the medical certification be included in the definition of 9930 (a), because

they are perfectly capable of providing interpretations for medical-legal scenarios.

My third concern is in regards to S9930. (f) 2 Full day should be defined as up to 7 hours, not 8. Full time

employees are entitled to breaks and lunch time.

My fourth concern is in regards to S9930 (j). The term medical-legal evaluation should be changed to

medical-legal evaluations and consultations. It is necessary to have an interpreter for consultations as

well as evaluations.


95

My fifth concern is in regards to S9930 . In this section there is no allowance for mileage and travel time.

Travel is a necessary component to being able to provide interpreting services, because in many if not

most situations there are no interpreters within 25 miles of the assignment. What will happen if the

financial compensation the interpreter receives does not satisfy the minimum requirement to make the

travel and mileage financially feasible for the interpreter to make the trip? Also, because most interpreters

live in city areas, there will be no incentive for interpreters to travel to the rural or less urban areas, where

there is a scarcity of interpreters, leaving the injured worker without the ability to receive medical and

legal services.

My sixth concern is in regards to S9930, where there is no definition for no show fees. Unexpected

cancelations from the injured worker and on occasion even the medical and legal service providers,

happen. For this reason, and for the fact that it is necessary for interpreting professionals to be able to

organize their schedule a day before to secure an efficient delivery of their services, a minimum of 24

hour prior cancelation is required. No Show cancelation fees is a standard for interpreting professionals.

My seventh concern is in regards to the section labeled 9h) Alternative Selection of Interpeter (B).

It is essential to have an expert language service provider render language interpretations in order to

ensure that no critical misunderstanding ensues as a result of lack of knowledge on the behalf of the

deemed qualified interpreter who is on staff. In most occasions the medical staff is not trained

professionally with sufficient vocabulary to know how to interpret accurate medical and legal settings.

Not only this but interpreting ethics state that the role of the interpreter is to be an uninvolved and

unbiased bridge of communication between parties, and if the qualified interpreter is hired by the medical

provider, there is a preference towards satisfying the provider. In certain situations, this could lead to a

lack of information being accurately delivered to the injured worker and the medical provider. The

interpreter in this scenario who is working for the medical provider may be unconsciously favoring the

medical provider, rather than being an providing unbiased clear communication between parties.Being an

interpreter is time demanding , and a qualified interpreter on staff may not have the time to sit down and

sufficiently hear the needs to accurately describe (either through paperwork or verbal interpretation) to

medical provider what is occurring with the patient. Lastly, WHO is going to judge if the language

spoken by the assumed qualified interpreter is proficient enough? Only a professional language speaker,

who is certified by an accredited institution, may judge such matters. A medical provider who does not

have such credentials is not qualified to judge if a medical staff is proficient or not in the target

language.

My eighth concern is in regards to S9933 (f). The application of this requirement is not realistic taking

into consideration that many appointments and assignments are last minute additions to their schedule.

My ninth concern is in regards to S9934 (c). A medical provider does not always speak the target

language, and in almost all of the cases is not a professional linguist who can judge whether the

interpreter has sufficient skill to provide and accurate interpretation service. This will lead the medical

provider to base this decision on judgments and not an unbiased professional assessment on the


96

interpreter's language skill and proficiency. Certification is a standardized system that helps asses that all

interpreters have sufficient skill to render medical and legal services in the target languages, and this

system can not be emulated by a medical provider in a way that ensures clear and accurate

communication. On a more pragmatic note, a medical provider has no time to create a system that asses

the interpreters language ability, and this responsibility should not be given to them. Only an accredited

certification institution should be given this responsibility.

My tenth concern is in regards is also for S99934 (d). Interpreters should not be required to submit proof

of identity, and have a copy be included in the report, because it may result in fraud. There have been

cases in which the medical provider or staff has used this copy to charge for interpreting services that the

interpreter has not provided.

My eleventh concern is in regards to S9936 Computation and Fees. A minimum two hour standard

should be required, because for many assignments, the interpreter has to travel to provide the services,

and it is not financially feasible for the interpreter if the two hour minimum is not upheld.

My twelfth concern is that once the regulation is approved, a date needs to be provided regarding

implementation. It also needs to be clear that the regulation will not be applied retroactively.

My thirteenth concern involves 9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter.

In regards to depositions, the party noticing the deposition should allow for the applicant attorney and/or

applicant to choose their own interpreter. It is a matter of discrimination and cultural insensitivity if

applicants are not given the option to choose the language provider that they most feel comfortable with.

Lastly, my fourteenth concern involves the following exert, "(2) This subdivision shall include the

preparation of the deponent immediately prior to the deposition, the reading of a deposition transcript to

the deponent prior to signing, and the reading of prior volumes of deposition transcript". It is only fair

and just that the applicant be given the choice to do the depo prep before the day of the deposition,

because it allows for applicants to think about and process the information that is provided during the

preparation in order for them to feel most prepared for their deposition.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Celeste Lopez-Jaramillo April 13, 2018

CCHI Certified Interpreter

I want to add my name to the comments to Interpreter's Regulations and Fees, submitted to you by the

Northern chapter, I have copied them below.


97

Thank you for your consideration and efforts to better the Interpreters and Translators' job.

The following are suggestions to the proposed language:

To Section 34 Appointment Notification and Cancellation:

(c): the following charge is recommended: ‘the party who notices the medical-legal evaluation shall

select and arrange for the presence of the interpreter. If the noticing party fails to arrange for interpreter,

then the opposing party shall select and arrange for the services and shall follow according to Section

9931.

To Section 9767.3 Requirements for a Medical Provider Network:

(c)(3):

There is the need for language requiring that MPNs provide a LIST of individual certified

interpreters. This is essential to change the current practice by MPNs to only list LSPs (Language service

providers) and not individual certified interpreters. In 2015 and 2016, CWCIA presented to the DWC

Director ample evidence of systematic violations of the certification requirement by these networks. If an

employer chooses to have an MPN for ancillary/interpreting services, they should be required to prove

the existence of CERTIFIED individuals in their network by listing individual interpreters, not just

LSPs. There should also be an entry mechanism for individuals and not only mega-corporations to be

able to enroll and participate in it.

Free-lance interpreters are not being allowed to participate directly in these ancillary service MPNs as

doctors or other services are. This has created a situation where a substantial pool of certified

interpreters is available to work, yet they cannot work directly for the MPN because there is no way for

them to be incorporated and/or individually listed.

In essence, they are being forced to take a pay cut and work through the huge corporations that have

monopolized the interpreting market. There’s a dichotomy in the way the MPN rules and the proposed

interpreter regulations have been written. There is negligible mention of LSPs in the proposed

regulations, at the same time, MPN dynamics have practically granted the entire market of interpreting to

one or two giant LSPs, excluding many certified professionals from offering their services directly to the

MPN.

Section 9930. Definitions.

(a) The elimination of ‘medical examinations’ as a certification valid at hearings and depositions is

recommended, and that Federal Court Certification is added to this section.


98

(e) A full day, even in Superior Court, does not consist of 8 hours. It is actually 7. There are 2 sessions

of 3.5 hours each, allowing breaks and 1 hour lunch.

(f) Half-Day means:

(2) It is strongly recommended that depositions shall also be defined in terms of half day (morning)

from 8:30-noon, and half day (afternoon) from 1 PM on Depositions are problematic in that most of them

begin at 10 am or 11 am, unlike hearings which start at 8:30 AM or 1:30 PM. The proposed definition

of a deposition will require an interpreter to commit 3.5 hours of the most productive hours of their day

to only ONE event for one flat fee. From a financial standpoint, it seems unrealistic and unreasonable

and it will deter any interpreter to take work at depositions as it limits their ability to accept any other

work around it. This is surely to lead to a massive rejection of deposition work by certified interpreters

which in turn will have a detrimental effect on Limited English Proficient (LEP hereafter) injured

workers.

** A definition for Language Service Provider is urged!

In the workers compensation world, all LSPs, big and small, provide a valuable service equivalent to

responsibilities of State Interpreter coordinators. Interpreter Coordinators are government paid positions

and as such, LSPs should be allowed a margin of operational profit for all the work they do.

Section 9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter.

(c)(2) the following modification is suggested: “the party noticing the deposition event shall select and

arrange for the presence of an interpreter”. It seems cumbersome and illogical to ask defense to be in

charge of scheduling meetings between applicant attorneys and injured workers as to when, where and

how the deposition review will take place.

(c)(3) Language in this paragraph seems reasonable in that it requires ‘all interpreters provided through

an MPN ancillary service provider’ to be certified. It does not, however, as mentioned in previous

comments, require a procedure for individual interpreters to apply or be included in such network.

(d). It is strongly recommended that the wording be changed to:

“The party who NOTICES the medical-legal evaluation shall select and arrange for the presence of an

interpreter”.

It is also urged to add language allowing the opposing party to select interpreter in the event that no

certified interpreter can be procured by the initial party. Additionally, clarifying language in subsections

(d) and (e) stating that if the interpreter selected by the Employer is not present at the time of the

appointment, the injured worker has the right to select a certified interpreter through a separate LSP.


99

(h) Alternative selection of Interpreter:

(1) the elimination of the word ‘qualified’ and replaced with ‘CERTIFIED’ is urged. Again, the

existing language lets the door open for the systematic use of substandard uncertified individuals, despite

all the requirements contained in Section 9932. These practices have deleterious effects to the LEP

injured worker.

If an employer, through its MPN cannot produce a certified interpreter, the option to select and arrange

an interpreter should go to the injured worker, with all the required notifications to the employer.

Section 9932. Requirements to Establish that a Certified Interpreter cannot be present.

(a)(b)(c) The interpreting community is very concerned about the language in these paragraphs! Again,

on a daily basis we witness, proof of which has been provided to the DIR, of widespread violations of the

certification requirement via the loophole contained in this language. The offending parties commonly

use the practice of sending massive emails to interpreters who do not work for them (due to their low

wages and abusive practices). Since these interpreters don’t respond, the LSP can use this as an

excuse/proof that they did their due diligence in contacting certified interpreters in the area. Requiring a

party to contact ONLY 3 interpreters is not enough to stop these abuses.

Section 9933. Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Hearings and Depositions:

(f) It cannot be stressed enough how the requirement in the proposed language for this section 9933(f)

will be an absolute and unmitigated administrative nightmare for judges, attorneys, interpreters,

language service providers and yes, even defense attorneys.

Please refer to comments for section 9936.

Section 9934. Requirements for Perform Interpreter Services at Medical Treatment Appointments and


(b) It is recommended that this section be modified to read:

“unless the parties have agreed to the use of a non-certified interpreter”. Why is it that Claims examiners

have complete control and prerogative over sending a non-certified interpreter?

Doesn’t the injured worker have a say over the quality of service he/she will get?

Section 9936. Computation of Fees.


100

(a)(3)(B) The deposition review proposed fee is not realistic. The proposed amount ($56) is a dollar less

than services by an uncertified medical interpreter. The fee should be equal to the legal fee with a 2 hour

minimum to account for the time that the interpreter must take to get to the site of the review, serve

corrections sheets to all parties, etc.

Just as in the deposition itself, transcript reviews must be done with the assistance of a certified

interpreter for legal settings, and as such, they should be paid accordingly. Please remember that injured

workers testimony is under oath, that errors in transcripts can impact their credibility in court and medical

evaluations. Deposition reviews should not be taken lightly and should and must be treated with the

same seriousness and commitment to professional language as a deposition. Not doing so is putting the

injured worker at a disadvantage from making necessary corrections to his/her testimony. Unless these

are paid accordingly, no competent, certified interpreter will be willing to accept these assignments.

(c) Computation of billing fees at multiple events:

The interpreting community is aware that the DWC has been inundated with complaints of interpreters

servicing multiple cases at one place, like the WCAB or medical offices. We understand the need to deal

with the seeming problem. However, prorated billing and sworn declarations are not the answer. Here

are a few of the nightmarish scenarios that will make this proposed solution worse than the problem:

· Overburdening the Judges and doctors with administrative requirements that are practically

impossible to comply with.

· It does not allow for the difference between an individual working/billing the employer directly,

and an interpreter working through an agency (LSP).

· It does not solve the issue of constantly changing circumstances either at the WCAB or at doctor’s

offices. Sometimes an interpreter will arrive at the WCAB planning to cover one assignment. If that

assignment is completed and the interpreter has already sworn on the record that their covered one case,

then a defense attorney needs their services for an unforeseen settlement that will be billed to a

completely different carrier, what happens?

· Court reporters are scarce these days. Does the record need to be modified? What if the only court

reporter of the day is busy with a trial? What if the doctor had to leave?

· What if an interpreter is covering a hearing for one LSP and an emergency arises where they have

to cover a case for another LSP? Why should the first LSP take a pay cut? Should the interpreter then

refuse to help in that additional case, delaying the process needlessly?

· What if an LSP has concurrent events at the same time at various WCABs. Does the LSP have to

prorate their invoices? Must they submit sworn statements?

· Have you considered the possibility of a separate interpreter servicing each and every separate job

individually. What would be the savings to the carriers?

· Defense attorneys appear at the WCAB on various cases on a given day all the time. It is very

disingenuous of them to complain about interpreters assisting on multiple cases when they do the same.

When and if this happens, it’s not because of scheming but a product of the market and circumstances.


101

· Free-lance interpreters are independent contractors, not employees! A fee regulation is permissible

under Labor Code rules requiring a uniform pay, however, where does the State, Insurance Carrier or

Employer have the authority to control their work schedules? For instance, even if MPN doctors have

their set fees, the State does not dictate how many patients a day they can see nor are they asked to

prorate their fees if they happen to get an last minute extra patient in the same time frame.

Is the $40 savings that the language proposes really worth the cost of foreseen litigation, administrative

burden on judges and doctors, and delay that this proposed pro-ration will cause?

THIS PROPOSED PRO-RATING OF FEES IS IMPOSSIBLE TO

COMPLY WITH, IT WILL CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE

NIGHTMARE AND FURTHER LITIGATION COSTS!

Section 9937. Billing Fees and Codes:

CODES: Thank you so much for creating billing codes!

FEES: First of all, a reminder that Fees should in no way be retroactive.

More importantly, as an interpreter working in Northern California, I offer the following

recommendations. Although it is appreciated that proposed fees are somewhat based on Superior and

Federal court rates, it is ESSENTIAL that a geographical rate modifier/ supplement be added. There are a

myriad of differences between court employees and per diems and workers compensation interpreters.

Here are some:

Superior Court employee interpreters have the guarantee of payment. We don’t.

We are subject to frequent and unfounded objections and delays in payment. The Workers Comp

interpreting assignment doesn’t end when the event ends. Thereafter this assignment must be laboriously

invoiced, served, appealed, frequently subjected to the costs and delays of IBR. Sometimes interpreters

go for years without seeing a single dollar of pay for a simple WCAB appearance they did. Court

interpreters get their check at the end of the month.

Superior and Federal Court Interpreters have no overhead. We do. Many interpreters and LSPs must pay

bookkeepers, self-employment insurance, lien reps, lien fees, extraordinary mileage and travel costs,

administrative and other expenses that the proposed fee is not factoring in.


102

Even per diem Court Interpreters become eligible for benefits after they work a set amount of hours per

year. Free-lance interpreters have absolutely NO BENEFITS. They must buy their own health insurance,

have no sick-day or vacation pay, employer contribution for retirement and certainly none of the

protections that an employee has under Labor Laws.

Northern California’s cost of living, interpreter availability and travel distances differ greatly from

Southern California. Please refer to the Berkeley Study Group recommendations and their frequent use

of the term ‘fair market value’. We predict a huge exodus of certified professionals from the Workers

Compensation arena, which will affect injured workers detrimentally. We understand and agree with the

need for a set rate to prevent some abuses that ‘market rate’ rules have caused. However, it is essential to

allow for fee modifiers or ‘supplements” for certain high cost areas where the above factors render the

current proposed fees unsustainable for language professionals and LSPs.

This is why we urge the DIR to introduce a geographical modifier for high-cost areas to be added to the

base amounts that have been proposed. An extra billable amount based on averages of current reasonable

fees. This will still provide a ceiling for fees while at the same time will sustain interpreter availability

in such areas, and will avoid a foreseen negative impact on limited English proficient injured workers in

many areas.

Other remarks:

Mileage and travel time allowances contained in the existing section 9795.3 (b)(3)(i) is absent.

We need mileage reimbursement! Eliminating mileage will affect injured workers that live in rural areas

of the State, as the fee proposed is in no way reasonable pay for travel required to service some remote

areas. Again, the injured worker suffers with low quality communication because there is no allowance

for a certified interpreter to travel to these areas.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Eder Vazquez April 13, 2018


I strongly oppose the proposed fee schedule for interpreter services provided to injured workers in their

proceedings based on the following reasons:

1. With the proposed fee schedule which is hopelessly removed from the market rates, it will be

difficult to retain a certified healthcare interpreters. These unrealistic fees create such a great gap

between the work comp sector with the rest of the sectors such as personal injury or civil


103

litigation. With the fees so much lower than the industry standard rates, language agencies will

have no choice to hire non-certified, less qualified interpreters who are willing to accept the low

rates.

2. The right of an injured worker to meaningful communication can be infringed if a non certified

interpreters’ services are used. A non-certified interpreter will not have the right training,

qualifications, skill sets, and experience to interpret properly in a legal setting where nothing

should be omitted, added, or paraphrased with his/her own words. With a claim based on sexual

harassment in a workplace, for instance, nuances and the exact words exchanged can be extremely

important in determining facts. Using an interpreter not qualified to handle those subjects can

potentially alter the outcome of a case.

3. It is against the principle of market-based economy. Based on the principle of supply and demand,

interpreter fees have been pretty much established among the insurance companies, language

agencies, and interpreters. The same attempts to establish much lower fees are not being made in

terms of doctors’ fees, attorneys’ fees, court reporters’ fees, and so on. This is extremely unfair

and disrespectful for the interpreting profession. As intellectual workers, certified interpreters go

through years of rigorous training and take a test which is very difficult to pass. Knowing two

languages does not make someone an interpreter; farless, a professional interpreter. Interpreting

requires unique skill sets. This explains why many certified healthcare interpreters hold minimum

of four-year college degrees, many of them master’s or doctorate degrees.

Based on the reasons stated above, I oppose establishing a fee schedule for interpreting services. The new

lower rates will serve a single purpose of benefiting the insurance companies. It will not help ensure the

rights of injured workers and it violates the principle of market-based economy.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Lorena Ortiz Schneider April 13, 2018

California State Administrative Hearing Certified Interpreter

California Workers’ Compensation Interpreters Association

Isis Bolanos Rivera

Santana Lopez & Associates, LLC

Marjory A. Bancroft, MA, Director & Founder

Cross-Cultural Communications

We have carefully read the March 2018 proposed Interpreter Fee Schedule and find that it raises many concerns for

the following reasons:


104

1. It will require more paperwork, more jumping through hoops, more policing by judges,

attorneys, medical providers and employers, claims administrators, interpreters and

interpreter service providers.

2. It will lead to more litigation and more payment disputes.

3. It waters down the requirements to provide limited English proficient (LEP) injured

workers with professional interpreters and meaningful language access, a civil right

afforded by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

4. It may open the state up to civil rights lawsuits like Lau v. Nichols, 414 US 563 (1974)

5. This proposal may limit the availability of certified interpreters for LEP injured workers

because it seeks to limit the earning potential of interpreter service providers and

interpreters.

6. As a direct result, it may drive professional interpreters out of the workers’ compensation

system.

7. While it can be agreed upon that in busy treatment medical facilities a one-hour minimum

might be a reasonable standard, the one- hour minimum sections leave out the words “and

location” at the end of “during same time slot” as recommended by the Berkeley Research

Group (BRG) report. One-hour minimums for treatment appointments in offices where

medical providers do not service a lot of workers’ compensation cases will lead certified

interpreters to decline said appointments, allowing for “provisionally” certified

interpreters as defined in this proposal to benefit the most, to the detriment of the LEP

injured worker.

8. Allowing monolingual medical providers, hearing officers and adjusters to determine who

has sufficient skill to be deemed “provisionally” certified defies logic.

9. Pro-rating interpreter services fees is unfair to interpreters in isolated, rural areas and

small Appeals Boards. Interpreters are at the mercy of court calendars and medical

providers’ schedules. Interpreters do not make their own schedules and should thus not be

penalized when working harder in the same time period.

10. The DWC has begun regulatory proceedings to put fee schedule geographical differentials

for medical providers in place, yet there is no allowance in this proposal for the difference

in fees according to geographical location and language combination for interpreters.

Commenter requests that the division reconsider the specific sections:

9767.3 Requirements for a MPN

Please add language requiring an MPN to notify Interpreter Service Providers (ISPs) and interpreters -

when the MPN chooses to provide INTERPRETING as an ancillary service.

Doing so will provide a level playing field, permitting interpreters to assume the risk when providing

services outside the MPN. The way things are currently, interpreters are the last to know and find out

only after having provided the services.


105


Strike “medical examinations,” from the definition of 9930 (a) “Certified interpreter for hearings and

depositions”

Interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website who only possess the medical certification are

precluded from interpreting in the legal setting.


CHANGE TO 7 HOURS

Full time employees are entitled to two 10-15 minute breaks and a 30 minute or one hour lunch,


As per ASTM Standard F-2089-15 Standard Practice for Language Interpreting, which was given to

you at our meeting of November 2016, interpreting is a unique, cognitively demanding activity that

requires breaks.

Refer to the DEFINITION under Section 3.1.1 and Section 7.6 NUMBER OF INTERPRETERS

REQUIRED in the ASTM Standard.

(f) “Half-day" means: (2) When appearing at a deposition, all or any part of 3.5 hours; CHANGE TO 3 HOURS and

ADHERE TO A HALF DAY MORNING AND AFTERNOON DEFINITION FOR DEPOSITIONS,

i.e: 8:30 am to 12:00 pm AND 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm.

The 3.5 hour half-day definition works for WCAB calendar, where the start time is 8:30 and end time is 12:00, then 1:30 and 5:00 respectively, but not for depositions which take place in different locations.

Interpreters need time for lunch, and to travel from morning to afternoon assignments, which often

take place in differing locations.


BAK 141379 case.

AFTER (h) “Hearing officer” ADD a definition for: INTERPRETER SERVICE PROVIDER (ISP)

Most freelance interpreters don’t bill carriers directly. Agencies do a lot of legwork to provide

interpreters for the countless events that need scheduling daily. ISPs perform a vital function in

coordinating interpreting services across the state and they are mentioned throughout the proposed

regulations, but are not defined.


106

According to the nationwide Association of Language Companies, an “Interpreter Service Provider” is

“is a professional business that provides one or more language-related services, such as translation,

interpreting, language instruction, language testing, cultural consulting, or localization.”

(j) “Medical-Legal Evaluation” means an evaluation as defined in sections 9793(c) and (g).

CHANGE TO: Medical-Legal Evaluations, Consultations and related diagnostic testing

Medical-legal consultations and diagnostic testing may also require interpretation services but they are

not mentioned in the proposed regulations.

There is no allowance for MILEAGE, TRAVEL TIME AND WAIT TIME

All assignments require that interpreters travel to and from the site where the services will be performed.

Other providers in the system, including defense attorneys, who must travel are compensated for

their travel and wait time. Interpreters should be afforded equal status and an allowance for these

items merits more discussion and consideration.

Add definition and allowance for: NO SHOW FEES

It is an industry standard for interpreter professionals who reserve time for a given service to be

reimbursed no less than the minimum fee unless notified of a cancellation at least 24 hours prior to

the time the service is to be provider. Unexpected cancellations are beyond the interpreter’s control.

§9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter

(k) “Provisionally certified interpreter for hearings and depositions” means an individual

deemed qualified to interpret at hearings and depositions when the requirements in sections 9931(a) and

9933 have been met.

(l) “Provisionally certified interpreter for medical treatment appointments and medical-legal

evaluations” means an individual deemed qualified to interpret at medical treatment appointments or

medical-legal evaluations when the requirements in sections 9931(a) and 9934 have been met.

CWCIA opposes any regulations that permit provisional certification. Only certified interpreters should

be used in those languages that are certified unless there is a more stringent unsuccessful effort made to

find an available certified interpreter as discussed below, under Section 9932. In those cases, we

recommend that the selected provisional interpreter be listed on the “provisional” list maintained by the

Commission for the Certification of Health Care Interpreters (CCHI) as explained in CWCIA’s letter of

November 21, 2016, to Mr. Parisotto.


107

Allowing for a provisionally certified interpreter under these definitions, the proposed fees, and the

“rule of 3” (where the employer has to contact only 3 certified interpreters for availability before hiring

a provisional) will have the unintended consequence of funneling more work to the provisional than the

certified interpreters.

Provisional interpreters will have no incentive to become certified because they will risk receiving less

work.

Minimum language proficiency standards, like for interpreters Registered with the courts, should

be implemented

§9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter

ADD: THE INJURED WORKER’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE INTERPRETER

The Employer should only have the right to choose the interpreter once the injured worker has

explicitly given up that right.


In those rare occasions where the employer has the right to select the interpreter or where the injured

worker has selected the interpreter and advised the employer of the selection, there ought to be a

penalty on the employer for failing to notify the injured worker that the interpreter has been

confirmed. This happens routinely. The employer’s preferred vendor frequently fails to send an

interpreter, leading to the local interpreter service provider or certified interpreter present on site to

be asked to perform the services, which in turn are objected to by the employer, and go unpaid.

(h) Alternative Selection of Interpreter


qualified interpreter site available, that interpreter shall be used.

This represents a huge conflict of interest. A staff interpreter’s ethical requirement to be neutral and

impartial could be compromised by the nature of the employer/employee relationship.

The medical provider will deem any “bilingual” staff member qualified to interpret in order not to miss

seeing a patient for whom the employer has failed to comply with their obligation to send the

interpreter. The regulation should be revised to give preference to the selection of a certified interpreter

if one happens to be available on site.


108

Section 9932. Requirements to Establish that a Certified Interpreter Cannot Be Present




The three-contact requirement is too low and it facilitates the employer’s preferred vendor, who often

asks for the services of a non-certified interpreter, to shirk its due diligence to find a certified interpreter.

Limiting the attempts to request a certified interpreter to three creates the likelihood for abuse, i.e., the

interpreter service provider contacted by the employer may not work with any certified interpreters. So, if

the employer is required to call only three, knowing the answer will be NO, then essentially they can

cherry pick which ISPs to call in order to justify using provisional interpreters in order to save money,

and to the detriment of the injured worker.

A minimum of ten contacts would be more appropriate since the law strongly favors the use of certified

interpreters.

(d) A party shall keep a written record of the interpreter service providers personally contacted to obtain

a certified interpreter, including the telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, dates and times

of each contact, and the names of the individuals who indicated that the interpreter service provider had

no certified interpreters available for the event. The written record shall contain, if applicable, a

statement that an interpreter service provide did not respond to the inquiry made under subdivision (a)

within one business day.

The practical application of this is simply not feasible. There are all too often unforeseen circumstances

including cancellations, add- ons, the I&A officers requesting last minute interpretation, etc.

For example, an interpreter might go on the record initially stating they have two cases. After

completing the first case, they learn that the other case has been cancelled. Now they are only there for

one case. Their billing would not reflect the official record leading to billing disputes that would need to

be resolved at a hearing before the WCAB, not to mention an accusation of perjury.This places an

undue burden on the hearing officers and the certified interpreters who are engaged in servicing the LEP

injured worker and those who need to communicate with the interpreter.


section is an insult to the profession and will foster inefficiencies and unnecessary litigation.


Medical-Legal Evaluations


109



How can a monolingual medical provider needing an interpreter possibly be the arbiter of whether a

person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter?

This is simply absurd.

The interpreter profession has already provided the DIR/DWC with a work-around. On May 20, 2016,

a document titled Provisionally Certified Interpreter Appeal, signed by 14 interpreting associations,

nation-wide, was sent to AD Parisotto and Staff Counsel Hersh warning about the dangers and

recommending an alternative to this misguided notion.

As drafted, this is a very dangerous proposal that risks trampling on the limited English proficient injured

worker’s civil right to meaningful access to government services as protected by Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964.





interpreter represented on the credential or photo identification, and attach a copy of the credential

and/or photo identification to the medical-legal exam report or medical treatment appointment file.

Certified interpreters are concerned about their credentials and personal information being circulated in

medical report distribution. There is enough identity fraud as it is with unscrupulous non-certified

interpreters and the agencies who send them posing as certified interpreters.

The medical provider has access to the internet and can verify the names of the certified interpreters on

the websites listings.

A medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the employer objecting to pay an interpreter’s

bill.

Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already requires this information This places an undue burden on

medical providers

Since interpreters’ proof of identity contains private, personal information, we recommend striking the

words attach a copy of the credential and/or photo identification to the medical-legal exam report or

medical treatment appointment file.


110

(e) Interpreters shall inform the medical provider whether this is first or subsequent interpretation during

the same one-hour medical treatment appointment time period or the same two-hour medical-legal exam

time period; the number of interpretations the interpreter has already done during the same period. The

provider shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report or medical file.

Frequently, scheduled assignments and the actual outcome are significantly different. There is no way

for an interpreter or ISP to know how long an assignment will last. Guesstimating how many

assignments within a one-hour period is impossible.

This will be labor intensive for the medical provider and the interpreter.

The medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the objecting to the payment of an interpreter’s bill.

§9936. Computation of Fees

This entire section.

ADD billing code for review and signing of settlement documents at informal settings

Interpreters should be entitled to some minimum amount in order to ensure that a particular assignment

is worth their while.


Most assignments require an interpreter to travel to the site where services are to be rendered.

Interpreters constantly have to turn down time-conflicting assignments.

No interpreter will travel over one hour and/or 60 miles, as in the case in many, many regions of

California to be paid for one hour of the sight translation of a court binding document, as in the case of

deposition transcript reviews, at the one hour minimum rate of $56.00! This is even less than what

this proposal allows for a “provisionally” non-certified interpreter at a medical treatment appointment

(see MTI-2): $57.75 per hour.

LEP injured workers will lose meaningful language access to workers’ compensation services when

professional interpreters leave the field for greater respect, equal pay and improved working conditions

in this fast-growing industry.


services? Doctors can see five patients in a day, or 10 or 20, as long as they bill at fee schedule. They


111

can have a P.A., and treat patients concurrently, and still bill at the fee schedule for each appointment.

Attorneys at the WCAB do not prorate their fees to different clients.

Restaurants do not charge less on busy nights.

Jiffy-lube doesn’t charge less the more customers they service in any given hour.

It is a trend in our industry for the applicant to sign settlement documents, in the applicant attorney’s


The requirements of this section represent an administrative nightmare for all parties, including bill

review companies, to keep track of and may lead to interpreters turning down assignments, thus

disrupting the flow of an injured worker’s case.

It could have unintended consequences, including an increase in the use of provisional interpreters

because of it.

We are puzzled about how the DWC calculated a 25% proration. This appears arbitrary and

capricious. What data were used to arrive at this percentage?

The BRG Report of Dec. 2014, as stated in our preface under Nº 7, recommended the one hour

minimum apply to events in the same location, not only in the same time frame. Further, the BRG

report recognizes the need for the interpreter to have an incentive to work: “It is appropriate that an

interpreter be entitled to some minimum amount in order to ensure that a particular assignment is

worth his or her while, since many assignments require an interpreter to travel to the site where

services are to be rendered and to forbear from accepting time conflicting assignments. We

recommend retaining the current minimum billing increment of fifteen minutes and the current

minimum fee of two hours per assignment, when there is only one client being serviced at particular

location.”

§9937. Billing Fees and Codes

The entire section

These “one siz

The “one size fits all” fees do not work for all language combinations in all geographical locations.


solution has already been presented to the DWC both in writing and in person on several occasions.

The BRG study included a compilation of fees charged by interpreters throughout the state.

These proposed fees won’t assure an adequate supply of interpreters for languages of lesser diffusion

(LLD). Many of these interpreters receive a small volume of assignments per year and the fees must be

higher in order to ensure availability to the injured worker. Additionally these interpreters must travel

long distances to perform services. Many LLD interpreters have expressed that these proposed fees


112

would drive them out of workers’ compensation and into other fields with better compensation.



The free hand of the market should prevail.

The fee schedule should be limited solely to those languages mentioned in proposed Regulation

9930(a). Fees for all other languages should be market rate because, as noted above, if fees for

LLD languages are limited to the proposed amounts, the supply of LLD interpreters is likely to

shrink to zero.

§9938. Interpreter Billing Requirements for Payment





Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already allows for such a declaration by the individual interpreter

providing the services. It is called an Interpreter Verification Form (IVF).

Guitron states, in part: The interpreter or Language Service Provider (LSP) must prove

reasonableness and necessity. Ref: Lines 17-21, Lines 21-24, Page 20, line 1-3

The interpreter or LSP must prove an interpreter was actually present for services.

Page 20, lines 23-24 & page 21, line 1-8 & 10-14

The lien claimant must prove the interpreter was qualified to provide the billed service. Page 22,

lines 10-26

When an Interpreter Service Provider (ISP) is the entity doing the billing, it is difficult or impossible

to get the free-lance interpreter who performed the services to sign each bill.

_________________________________________________________________________________

M. Hollie Rutkowski, SBN 1127240 April 13, 2018

The Compensation Law Center

I represent Spanish Speaking injured workers. I use one Certified Interpreter for medical appointments

and WCAB appearances. I know what my issues are and I know what her issues are.


113

Many Certified Interpreters will not work for Interpreter Agencies like One Call. The proposed

Interpreter Fee Schedule benefits Interpreter Agencies like One Call at the expense of Independent

Certified Interpreters. Why is that?

My experiences is that Claims Administrators discriminate against Independent Certified Interpreters and

send their business to Interpreter Agencies like One Call, who charge much more than Independent

Certified Interpreters fro the same service. Why is that?

I am asking “Why is that?” because Claims Administrators are al about cost containment. Claims

Administrators stiff Independent Certified Interpreters, which is a sleazy cost containment tactic. This

requires Independent Certified Interpreters to file a Petition and litigate their unpaid invoices. Claims

Administrators hire Defense Attorneys to make sure the Independent Certified Interpreters don’t get paid.

But the Independent Certified Interpreters do eventually get paid because Workers’ Compensation Judges

recognize that Independent Certified Interpreters provide an indispensable purpose.

So, in the regular course of business, the Claims Administrators refuses to pay an Independent Certified

Interpreter. The Claims Administrators then hires an Attorney to make sure the Independent Certified

Interpreter never gets paid. A Workers’ Compensation Judge awards the Independent Certified

Interpreter her unpaid invoices plus penalties and interest. Everyone is happy – the Claims

Administrators gets to pay her favorite Defense Attorney by the hour. The Defense Attorney bills as

many hours as he can. The Independent Certified Interpreter eventually gets paid more than she billed –

but that is not cost containment because the Claims Administrator ends up paying much more in than if

the Claims Administrators has paid the Independent Certified Interpreter in the first place.

The Claims Administrators prefers to use Interpreter Agencies like One Call, which charge more than the

Independent Certified Interpreter because One Call gets its cut. The Interpreter Fee Schedule allows The

Claims Administrator to Contract with One Call to pay higher rates than an Independent Certified

Interpreter charges – but that is not cost containment either.

I am glad that the DWC recognizes that Claims Administrators hire non-certified Interpreters whenever

they can get away with it. One Call, Cypress, Go T&T, Health e Systems and the like – Interpreter

Agencies - contracts both non-certified Interpreters and certified Interpreters. In Sacramento, where I

practice, there is no shortage of certified Interpreters, yet Interpreter agencies (especially One Call) still

assign non-certified Interpreters for medical appointments and Claims Administrators pay One Call for

those non-certified Interpreters. That is, they pay whatever the bill is even when Interpreter was not

certified.

I would like the DWC to crack down one on One Call and every Interpreter agencies that contract with

non-certified Interpreters and assign non-certified Interpreters to perform services that require a certified

Interpreters.


114

This practice will continue to go on unless the DWC imposes some penalty or sanction or administrative

fee for Interpreter Agencies contracting non-certified Interpreters and assigning non-certified Interpreters

when a certified Interpreter is required.

**********************************************************

Proposed § 34(c) The QME shall state in the notification whether a Certified Interpreter as described in

Labor Code section 5811 and subject to the provisions of California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections

9930(b) and 9934 is required, and, if so, the language to be used. The employer shall select and arrange

for the presence of the interpreter as provided in California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9931(d)

and pay the cost of the interpreter as provided for in section 5811 of the Labor Code.

COMMENT:

This Reg does not make sense. How is a QME to know when an Injured Worker needs an Interpreter?

The only person who knows whether the Injured Worker needs an interpreter is the Injured Worker.

Proposed §9767.3 Requirements for a Medical Provider Network Plan. (c)(3) If an MPN chooses to

provide ancillary services [and] If interpreter services are included as an MPN ancillary service, the

interpreters listed must be certified as defined in section 9930(b).

COMMENT: The 2014 MPN Regs requires that for a valid MPN ancillary service of Interpreters, there must be a list

of certified interpreters. Try to get a list of One Call’s Certified Interpreters.; here’s the number 866-672-

5797. I called and talked to Leo in El Salvador. He told me that the names and certification status of One

Call’s Independent Contractors are confidential information.

I would love to see One Call compelled to list all of its Certified and non-certified Interpreters.


(e) Medical Treatment Appointments.



interpreters in that language available at reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area, the

injured worker must select and utilize an individual interpreter or interpreter service from the ancillary

service provider list. If individual interpreters are listed by the interpreter provider service, the injured

worker shall choose which certified interpreter to use. All interpreters provided through an MPN

ancillary interpreting service provider must be certified as defined in section 9930(b). The employer shall

arrange for the presence of the employee-selected interpreter at the medical treatment appointment.

COMMENT:


115

This new Reg is of great interest to me. It makes good sense to allow the injured worker to select and

utilize an individual interpreter. Why include “interpreter service”? What is an “interpreter service”? One

Call is an Agency that Contracts with non-certified interpreters and certified interpreters. Is One Call an

“interpreter service”? If One Call an “interpreter service”, how is an injured worker to know if the

Interpreter foisted upon him by One Call is certified?

Another thing – The MPN that includes an ancillary interpreter provider list implies that there has to be at

least two “interpreter service” so that the injured worker can exercise some choice. What if the MPN

ancillary interpreter provider list on lists one “interpreter service”? Is that list invalid? It should be.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Rebecca Arevalo April 13, 2018

My attention was brought to the proposed change of the Workers Comp Interpreters rules and

regulations. I work for an interpreting company. I do not do interpreting myself but I do collect on past

bills. I see many issues with the current system so I do agree that something needs to be done. I know that

these proposed guidelines are even more confusing than the old system. I agree with the list of concerns

listed below and I would like to add that it feels as if these proposed guidelines were written out very

poorly and with little consideration for how this will affect the workers comp interpreters and the workers

comp claimants. I feel as though this is a one sided proposal to allow insurance companies to pinch

pennies and while they are pinching pennies they are driving out the true professionals that work very

hard to be of assistance to all parties involved. I would hope that you would consider to change as many

of these new guidelines as they are listed out for you below. My number one complaint is that you are not

listing any difference between an interpreter and the company who may hire and schedule an interpreter.

Please review all concerns and allow more biased parties to make help set these guidelines.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Rosa Green April 13, 2018

State Certified Interpreter

The proposal raises many concerns for the following reasons:




116

























9767.3 Requirements for a MPN: Please add language allowing for Interpreter Service Providers (ISPs) and interpreters to be notified when


REASON:



117










depositions”

Reason: Because interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website who possess the medical




CHANGE TO 7 HOURS

Reason:






REQUIRED

Under §9930. Definitions: (f) “Half-day" means:




Reason:


time is 12:00, then 1:30 and 5:00 respectively, but not for depositions which take place in different

locations. Interpreters need time for lunch, and to travel from morning to afternoon assignments, which

often take place in different locations.


118


BAK 141379 case

Under §9930. Definitions: AFTER (h) “Hearing officer” ADD:


Reason: Because the reality is that most freelance interpreters don’t bill carriers directly. Agencies do a lot of




Under §9930. Definitions: (j) “Medical-Legal Evaluation” means an evaluation as defined in sections 9793(c) and (g).

CHANGE TO:

Medical-Legal Evaluations & Consultations

Reason: Because medical-legal consultations also exist



Reason: Because all assignments require that interpreters travel to the site where the services will be performed.

Because other providers in the system, including defense attorneys, who must travel are compensated

for Under §9930.


Reason: Because it is an industry standard for interpreter professionals who reserve time for a given service to be








119



Reason: Because on section 9931 (4) (f): it says that the employer has to be notified within two days that the



contradictory.



Reason: Because there is no penalty for the employer failing to comply with the obligation to notify the injured





(h) Alternative Selection of Interpreter: (B) At medical-legal evaluations or medical treatment appointments, if the medical provider has a


Reason: Because this represents a huge conflict of interest. Because a staff interpreter’s ethical requirement to be

neutral and impartial will be compromised by the nature of the employer/employee relationship.

Because the medical provider will deem any “bilingual” staff member qualified to interpret in order not

to miss seeing a patient for whom the employer has failed to comply with their obligation to send the

interpreter.





Reason: Because this requirement is too low and it facilitates the employer’s preferred vendor, who often asks for

the services of a non-certified interpreter, to shirk its due diligence to find a certified interpreter.

Ten would be a better number.



120






business day.

Reason:





services.


(f) All interpreters shall state on the record the following

information: the interpreter’s full name, whether this is the first or a subsequent interpretation during the

same one-half day or full day time period; the number of interpretations the interpreter has already done

during the same time period; and the total number of hearings or depositions the interpreter is scheduled

to perform during the same time period. In addition, certified interpreters shall state on the record the

name of the certifying agency or organization and the interpreter’s certification credential or badge

number.

Reason: Because the practical application of this is simply not feasible.

There are all too often unforeseen circumstances including cancellations, add ons, the I&A officers

requesting last minute interpretation, etc. For example, an interpreter might go on the record initially

stating they have 2 cases. After completing the first case, they find that the other case has been cancelled.

Now they are only there for one case. Their billing would not reflect the official record leading to billing

disputes that would need to be resolved at a hearing before the WCAB, not to mention an accusation of

perjury. Because this places an undue burden on the hearing officers and the certified interpreters who are



section is an insult to the profession.


Legal Evaluations:



Reason:


121

Because how can a monolingual medical provider needing an interpreter possibly be the arbiter of

whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter? This is simply absurd The interpreter








Legal Evaluations:







Reason:

Because certified interpreters are concerned about their credentials and personal information being

circulated in medical report distribution. There is enough fraud as it is with unscrupulous noncertified

interpreters and the agencies who send them posing as certified interpreters. Because the medical

provider has access to the internet and can verify the names of the certified interpreters on the websites

listings.

Because the medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the employer objecting to pay an

interpreter’s bill Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already requires this information

Because this places an undue burden on medical providers


Legal Evaluations:




period; The medical provider shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report or medical file.

Reason: Because frequently, scheduled assignments and the actual outcome are different. There is no way for an






122


Reason: Because interpreters should be entitled to some minimum amount in order to ensure that a particular














doesn’t charge less the more customers they service in any given hour. This is discriminatory.

§9937. Billing Fees and Codes: Add billing code for review and signing of settlement documents at informal settings

Reason: It is a trend in our industry for the applicant to sign settlement documents, in the applicant attorney’s



Reason: Because these “one size fits all” fees do not work for all languages in all geographical locations. Why not

approach fees based on geographic location and language pair? The information for such a solution has

already been presented to the DWC both in writing and in person on several occasions. The BRG study

included a compilation of fees charged by interpreters throughout the state. Because these fees won’t

assure an adequate supply of interpreters for languages of lesser diffusion (LLD). Many of these

interpreters receive a small volume of assignments per year and the fees must be higher in order to ensure

availability to the injured worker. Additionally these interpreters must travel long distances to preform

services. Many LLD interpreters have expressed that these proposed fees would drive them out of

workers’ compensation and into other industries with better compensation. Because the two-hour


123



§9938. Interpreter Billing Requirements for Payment: (12) A declaration by the interpreter stating: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the information




Reason: Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already allows for such a declaration by the individual



performed the services cannot sign each bill.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Venita Metzinger April 13, 2018

Metzinger & Associates

As an attorney practicing Workers' Compensation Applicant’s work in Sacramento since 1991,

I am extremely aware of the shortage of certified interpreters to assist with translation of legal concept

like MMI, TTD, causation, apportionment and SJDB. In the greater Sacramento area, it is not unusual to

find employers who do not require English in the work place. We find that Hmong, Hindi and Spanish

are just a few of the languages which are present with variations depending on exact place of origination.

To cut back on the requirement for certification or fees that would encourage participants in the process

of certification, would penalize workers who are injured trying to earn a living for themselves and their

families. How can a case be fairly adjudicated if one party does not understand their obligations and

rights? What Judge can confidently approve a settlement when the Applicant does not understand what

the words mean?

Being able to make a living wage encourages people to go through the certification process and keep

their skills sharp. How can a doctor proceed with medical treatment if the patient can not explain what

their medical problems are? How can a doctor proceed with treatment that the patient does no understand

and can not be prepared for the result? Use of interpreters who are not certified or are the minor children

of the injured worker is a formula for disaster.

The Workers' Compensation System needs certified Interpreters because the state of California has a

diversified language labor force.


124

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Adriana M. Arriola April 13, 2018

Court Certified Spanish Interpreter

State of California

As a professional interpreter practicing in the state of California, I would like to address 3 areas of utmost

concern regarding the proposed fee schedule.

--The Definition of Half Day/Full Day: The proposed definition of half day/full day must be revised. The

DWC proposal defines said duration as 3.5 hours and up to 8 hours respectively. This not only differs

from standard practice in many areas of California due to the often long distances we are required to

travel between assignments, but also reflects an impractical expectation of the interpreter’s ability to do

so. Though it is an accurate estimate of the duration of hearings at the WCAB, it fails to take into

account the reality that the majority of depositions are set at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m; this further ignores the

fact that our services are often required for the prep 1 hour before the proceeding even begins. Because it

would be rather unfeasible for an interpreter to responsibly accept both a morning and an afternoon

assignment and carry it out to completion so as not to effectively slash his/her earning capacity in half,

this measure could have the unintended consequence of needing to schedule 2 interpreters in order to

ensure its completion, which would seem to defeat the purpose.

--The Use of Provisionally Certified Interpreters for Medical/Legal

Appointments: There are several problems with the proposed practice of using provisionally certified

interpreters in lieu of actual certified interpreters for medical and legal appointments. The certification

process is in place in order to both validate an interpreter’s competence in providing language services as

well as to protect the interests of claimant and insurance company alike. Neglecting the use of a bonifide

certified interpreter is to risk not only the incorrect communication of injuries, symptoms, and the

circumstances leading to the injury and the subsequent possible misallocation of necessary treatment,

which could signify undue health-related as well as financial consequences, but to also lead to greater

costs of further litigation if, by the misinterpretation of an unqualified, but provisionally certified,

interpreter, a report/deposition is found to be invalid. Knowing 2 languages is not an accurate

measurement of an individual’s ability to provide interpreting services. A certified interpreter is a tool

for cost-containment. Trying to cut corners to save money in the short run could prove more expensive

in the long run.

--The Role of Agencies: The proposal does not make adequate provision for interpreting agencies. It

ignores the fact that agencies normally bill insurance carriers at a higher rate (market rate) than what


125

interpreters charge for a reason. Interpreters such as myself, understand that the agency needs to bill at

this higher rate in order to be compensated for the many very important functions they perform.

Independent contractors such as myself, depend on the agency to, among other things, coordinate

appointments, schedule and confirm the proper service, bill and collect, file liens and petitions, and

research the labor code and review prior cases for proper billing practice and respond to payment denials.

We simply cannot do everything, and expecting us to do so potentially risks a lower quality of service if

we have to worry about getting paid or sacrificing a potential work opportunity in order to appear at a

lien conference/trial, a process that all know to be often long drawn-out.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Martin Hoffman April 13, 2018

I am writing to express my opposition to the adoption of the proposed interpreter regulations as they are

currently worded. Among the major problems I have identified I would like to highlight the following:

- The proposed two-tiered fee schedule would be extremely detrimental to the certified, professional

interpreter community and would roll back all the gains the profession has made towards elevating its

profile over the past 15 years.

- The fees being proposed fail to take into consideration geographical location and language combination.

The market reality is that the languages of lesser diffusion usually command much higher rates.

- California is a very large state and it is often necessary to drive long distances to get to assignments.

The proposed regulations unfortunately have no allowance for mileage or travel time to get from one

destination to another.

I appreciate the work that the DWC does but in this case I think there is a great deal of further work to be

done in order to make the interpreter regulations acceptable to the interpreter community, which would in

turn help ensure reliable and high-quality interpreting services for end users.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Thomas Novelli April 13, 2018

Vice President

Government Relations and Public Affairs

One Call Care Management


126

One Call appreciates the opportunity to submit comments with respect to the proposed modifications to

California interpreter regulations (“the proposal”). We commend the Division of Workers’

Compensation (“DWC”) efforts to ensure that injured workers receive the best care possible in the most

timely and efficient manner.

One Call is the nationwide leader of care management services in the workers’ compensation industry.

Our mission is to ensure that injured workers receive timely and efficient access to the highest quality

providers across a spectrum of ancillary healthcare services. We have a longstanding commitment and

relationship with the state of California. In 2017 alone, we conducted over 195,000 translations through

our network of interpreters. In addition, we employ more than 300 Californians throughout the state

who help accomplish our mission each and every day.

Our comments focus on the following areas:

Concerns Relating to Implementation of the Proposed Selection Process for Certified

Interpreters

Proposed Rates for Interpreter Services

Concerns Relating to Implementation of the Proposed Selection Process for Certified Interpreters DWC is proposing that before any non-certified interpreter be used for an interpretation event, a party

should make at least three attempts to contact a certified interpreter before it can be established that a

certified interpreter cannot be present for an interpretation event. However, we do not believe that this

goal will be achievable and will lead to numerous unintended consequences that will delay care to

injured workers. We believe that the proposed selection criteria for certified interpreters will be

extremely difficult to implement due to the current available supply of certified interpreters in the state.

In addition, this process will lead to considerable confusion for all stakeholders including patients,

interpreters, medical providers and employers.

Based on our own experience and that of other stakeholders in the California market, there is a critical

shortage of medically certified interpreters to meet the ever-growing demand of translations. With the

proposal, we are led to assume that DWC believes that there is an adequate supply of medically certified

interpreters. This is simply not the case. Furthermore, we are unaware of any empirical or anecdotal data

to support the assumption that there is an adequate supply of certified interpreters.

The lack of supply can reasonably be demonstrated by comparing the sheer volume of interpretations

that take place in medical appointments across California each and every day against the current supply

of medically certified interpreters. For example, there are approximately 1,000 interpreters in California

medically certified by the Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (“CCHI”), one of the

two standards to qualify as a medically certified interpreter in the state.3 However, there are at least 1.2


127

million interpretations that occur every year in workers’ compensation in California alone.

Furthermore, this assumes that CCHI certified interpreters are providing services for injured workers

alone. The reality is that CCHI certified interpreters are providing translation services for various other

patient populations including those in the Medi-Cal program, commercial health and others through

expanded healthcare coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It is reasonable to assume that the current population of medically certified interpreters cannot meet the

unprecedented demand for interpretation services, we support provisions to continue the use of

provisionally certified interpreters. The use of these qualified interpreters will still enable injured

workers to receive the quality care that they deserve while meeting the demand for interpretations

within the state. Moreover, we recommend that DWC conduct additional studies on the supply of

certified interpreters within the state and the ability of such supply to handle the translation

demands of injured workers and other patient populations throughout the state. This is especially important if the DWC intends to implement new processes for the selection of

interpreters such as those suggested in the proposal.

Proposed Rates for Interpreter Services

One Call appreciates DWC’s efforts to bring clarity to payment rates for interpretation services within

the workers’ compensation industry. We generally believe that transparency and predictability in

translation payment rates are crucial elements to ensure that injured workers receive timely and efficient

access to high quality care.

One Call believes that the proposed provisions on interpretation rates will unfortunately not bring

transparency and predictability to the marketplace. Instead, the current proposed rules and rates will

likely cause unnecessary complexity within the system and will lead to significant confusion among all

stakeholders including injured workers, payers, interpreters and employers. This confusion will likely

lead to the unintended consequence of delays in the delivery of care to injured workers. To this end

and in the interest of all stakeholders, One Call strongly recommends that DWC give

considerable time and focus to payment rates for translation services, as this is an area that

deserves further discussion and clarification.

Conclusion

One Call commends DWC for the effort to enact modifications to the existing regulatory framework for

interpretations. While we support these efforts, we do have significant concerns regarding the current

supply of certified interpreters in the state and recommend that DWC spend additional time examining

the certified interpreter supply in the context of the entire healthcare marketplace in California. In

addition, One Call believes that transparency and predictability in translation payment rates are crucial

elements to ensure that injured workers receive timely and efficient access to high quality care. We

strongly recommend that DWC give additional time and focus to payment rates from translation service


128

as we believe that this is an area that deserves further discussion and clarification.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Lisa Anne Bickford, Director April 13, 2018

Workers’ Comp Government Relations

Coventry

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the aforementioned proposed rules.

After a review of the proposal in light of Coventry’s current operational framework, we

would like to offer the following comments:

Section 9937 – Billing Fees and Codes – Billing Rules; Lack of Standardized 5-Digit

Identifier

ISSUE: Section 9937 outlines fee schedule values for interpretations at hearings and

depositions, using state-specific identifiers of “HDI-1” and “HDI-2”. From a bill review

perspective, we are questioning whether we can anticipate that these bills will be coming

into Bill Review on a standard CMS-1500/HCFA form, similar to medical treatment bills.

System limitations would prevent use of hyphens, and would require use of a 5-character

identifier. For example, consider med-legal bills that have a state-specific, 5-digit identifier of

“ML105”. Would we expect that these bills would come in with an identifier of “HD101” or

“HD102”?

SOLUTION: To eliminate any potential confusion in this regard, it would be better if the

proposed codes were changed to the standard naming convention, such as “HD101” or

similar nomenclature.

1. Section 9936 – Cancellation Fees – Undefined Standardized Identifier

ISSUE: Section 9936, in two separate subsections, addresses payable cancellation fees for

failed medical appointments and failed depositions and hearings. Neither section provides a

standard identifier for billing cancellations.


129

SOLUTION: To ensure that the payer understands that they are receiving a bill for a failed appointment, the state should create a separate standardized identifier for failed medical appointments, and for failed depositions/hearings. A code such as “HDF01” (for “Failed”) could be used for a failed HD101, for example.

2. Section 9938 – Billing Requirements

ISSUES: Section 9938 outlines twelve (12) different billing requirements that an interpreter must

include on their billing statement in order for a bill to be payable. Related to the issues we raised under

Section 1 above, if it is anticipated that these billings will now be coming in on standardized CMS-

1500 billing forms, we raise the following points:

a. Will the Medical Billing and Payment Guide be updated to include these sections related to billing

requirements for interpreters?

b. Will the state be defining which fields on the CMS-1500 would then be cross-referenced to each

of the billing requirements? (e.g., would the interpreter place his certification number, if any, in

the Rendering Provider NPI field?) Where would the “time spent” be included (under “Units”?)

Where would the interpreter be placing the Subsection 12 attestation under penalty of perjury?

c. If we receive an interpretation bill that is lacking one of the 12 required elements, would the bill

then be denied and returned to the provider?

SOLUTION: Modify the Billing and Payment Guide to include Interpreters Bills, and map each of the

12 required elements to fields on the CMS-1500. Define action to be taken by a payer in the event that

a bill is received that is lacking in one of the 12 elements.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Carlos Garcia Lopez, CMI-Spanish April 13, 2018

Considering the new regulations proposed by Department of Industrial Relations, my comment as Vice-

President of Language Workers of the Pacific Media Workers / Communications Workers of America is

as follows:

The fees payed to medical interpreters need to be adjusted from the level it was set more than 20 years

ago from $45.00 per hour with a two-hour minimum to at least $110.00 per hour with a two-hour

minimum to account for cost-of-living increases since de mid 90’s.


130

Additionally, there must be a provision in the schedule to increase the fee by 2% every year

automatically to account for the cost-of-living increase for the years to come so that we avoid this issue

in the future. Keep in mind that payment of these fees is not a burden to the state's budget and tax payers

since those funds come from employers that pay the insurance premiums. Those premiums go up every

year.

Regarding medical interpreter qualifications, the Administrative Director of Workers’ Compensation of

the Department of Industrial Relations of the state of California shall eliminate the “provisionally

certified” loophole thus eliminating the incentive for payors to look for cheaper unqualified interpreters.

All interpreters need to be compensated the same rate for the same task performed.

All medical interpreters need to be compensated at least for two-hour minimums for all non-medical legal

encounters (treatment and follow-up visits), and three-hour minimums for all medical-legal encounters.

Depending on the nature of the assignment, the minimum will be higher. For mental health evaluations,

the minimum shall be five hours, and for functional restoration programs, the minimum shall be six

hours, e.g.

The certification/credential selected and recognized by the state through this fee schedule needs to be

defensible in a court of law. This is to be done to safeguard patient safety in follow-ups and treatment

visits, and to protect the validity of medical-legal reports created with the assistance of an interpreter

bearing those credentials.

If a QME report, for example, is made with the assistance of a medical interpreter whose credentials

cannot be proved to be granted upon passing a test that is psychometrically valid and the organization

delivering the test to be without a conflict of interest, the report could be challenged in a court of law and

rendered invalid.

For the credentials to be defensible in a court of law, they must be granted upon successful completion of

a competency examination that is psychometrically valid and delivered by an organization that has no

conflict of interest.

All medical interpreters certified by organizations whose credentials cannot be validated as explained in

the last paragraph hall be granted a six-month grace period to get credentialed by an organization whose

credentials can be validated. One example of an organization whose credentials can be validated is the

Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI). The CCHI certification program involves a

two-step certification process that includes a knowledge-based exam and a performance based exam.

The knowledge-based exam assesses knowledge of healthcare interpreting, e.g. medical terminology,

protocols, standards, and ethics. The knowledge-based exam, also known as the written exam, is

available in English for all interpreters regardless of their language of service. Upon successful


131

completion of the knowledge-based exam, candidates can take a language-specific performance-based

exam if available in their language of service.

If there is no performance-based exam in their language pair, interpreters are granted the professional

credential CoreCHI. That credential shall be recognized by California as a certification. There is no

performance-based exam for that language, yet, so this is the highest level of credentialing a medical

interpreter with that language can obtain. When CCHI develops a performance-based exam in that

language, the interpreter is requested to take it or face removal of the CoreCHI credential.

The performance-based exam assesses the oral performance of the interpreters in their language pair in

consecutive, simultaneous, and sight translation. It also assesses translation of healthcare documents to

the extent that this skill is required for medical interpreters.

These performance-based examinations are available for interpreters whose language of service is

Spanish, Mandarin, and Arabic. The performance-based examination for Russian interpreters is in

development.

If provisionally certified medical interpreters are to be included, I recommend that only interpreters that

have passed the CoreCHI exam be granted this label. This guarantees that the interpreter passed a

knowledge-based assessment that is accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies

(NCCA) and that the interpreter has completed a training program as a medical interpreter that meets the

training standards of the National Council on Interpreting in Health Care (NCIHC). The accreditation of

NCCA ensures that the test has psychometric validity and that the testing organization does not have a


Healthcare providers, claim adjusters and attorneys may not have the qualifications to determine if an

interpreter has the competency needed. Mandating that the interpreter passes the CoreCHI examination

provides the scientific evidence that makes the credential defensible in a court of law.

Additionally, requiring the CoreCHI and CHI credentials allows the healthcare provider to corroborate in

real time if the interpreter's credential is current. To keep the credential current, CoreCHI an CHI

credentialed interpreters must comply with robust re-certification requirements such as attend continuing

education workshops and lectures.

Also, when sitting to take the CoreCHI exam and the CHI exam, the interpreter must present a valid

government-issued picture identification. This makes the case of fraud less likely. To reduce the

likelihood that credentialed medical interpreters’ identities are used by someone else, the interpreters

need to present the badge issued by CCHI.

All medical interpreters need to be trained to perform as an interpreter in health care settings in

accordance with the training standards of NCIHC. This is achieved by requiring the medical interpreter to


132

be credentialed by the Certification Commission for Health Care Interpreters. Those credentials are

CoreCHI for interpreters for whom there is no performance-based exam, and CHI for interpreters for

whom there is a performance-based exam.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Pilar Garcia, President April 13, 2018

Statewide Interpreters

Please receive the comments and suggestions from Statewide Interpreters, our agency has been providing

injured workers interpreting services for more than 20 years in the state of California. With the new

proposed fee schedule we will have to close our doors, like other small business we make our living

providing interpreting services to injure workers.

Please see the following:

Assignment of Qualified Medical Evaluators, Evaluation Procedure


(c) The QME shall include within the notification whether a Certified Interpreter, as described by Labor Code Section 5811 and subject to the provisions of section 9795.3 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, is required and specify the language. The interpreter shall be arranged by the party who is to pay the cost as provided for in section 5811 of the Labor Code.

(c) The QME shall state in the notification whether a Certified Interpreter as described in Labor Code section

5811 and subject to the provisions of California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 9930(b) and 9934 is

required, and, if so, the language to be used. The party that gives the notification should arrange for the

interpreter The employer shall select and arrange for the presence of the interpreter as provided in California

Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9931(d) and pay the cost of the interpreter as provided for in section 5811 of

the Labor Code.

Title 8 California Code of Regulations





§9767.3 Requirements for a Medical Provider Network Plan.


133

(c)(3) If an MPN chooses to provide ancillary services, the ancillary service provider file shall have only the

following six columns. The columns shall be in the following order: (1) the name of each ancillary service

provider (2) specialty or type of service (3) physical address (4) city (5) zip code of each ancillary service

provider. If the ancillary service or ancillary service provider is mobile, list the covered service area within

California. By submission of an ancillary provider listing, the applicant is affirming that the providers listed can

provide the requested medical services or goods and have a current valid license number or certification to

practice, if they are required to have a license or certification by the State of California. If interpreter services

are included as an MPN ancillary service, the interpreters listed must be certified as defined in section 9930(b)

9795.1.6(a)(2)(A) and (B).







(a) “Certified interpreter for hearings and depositions” is an individual listed as a certified interpreter for

administrative hearings, medical examinations, or state court proceedings on the State Personnel Board website

at http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/Interpreterlisting or is listed as a certified interpreter on the California Courts website at

http://courts.ca.gov/programs-interpreters.htm in one of the following languages: Spanish, Tagalog, Arabic,

Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Vietnamese, American Sign Language, Eastern Armenian, Western

Armenian, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Punjabi, or Russian, or other languages authorized or designated pursuant

to Government Code sections 11435.40, 11435.35, and 68562.



following the languages: Spanish, Tagalog, Arabic, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Vietnamese,

American Sign Language, Eastern Armenian, Western Armenian, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Punjabi, or

Russian, or other languages authorized or designated pursuant to Government Code sections 11435.40,

11435.35, and 68562; and meets one of the following requirements:


(2) Is certified as a medical interpreter by the California Department of Human Resources as appears on the State

Personnel Board website at http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/InterpreterListing; or

http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/Interpreterlisting

http://courts.ca.gov/programs-interpreters.htm



134

(3) Has a valid and current Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI) certification/credential

in Spanish, Mandarin, or Arabic; or

(4) Has a valid and current National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters (National Board)

certification/credential in Spanish, Russian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, or Vietnamese.

(c) "Claims administrator" is the person or entity responsible for providing security for the payment of

compensation for any of the following: a self-administered insurer providing security for the payment of

compensation required by Divisions 4 and 4.5 of the Labor Code, a self-administered self-insured employer, the

director of the Department of Industrial Relations as administrator for the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust

Fund (UEBTF) or for the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF), or a third-party claims administrator

for a self-insured employer, insurer, legally uninsured employer, joint powers authority, the Self-Insurers’

Security Fund, or the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA).

(c) – 1 “LSP” ( Language Service Providers ) This covers interpreting agencies that provide interpretation

services for injured workers at medical, Med-Legal evaluations and Legal appointments.

(d) “Employer” is the employer, the insurer of an insured employer, a claims administrator, or an entity acting

on behalf of any of them.



(1) When appearing at any hearing of the appeals board or a daytime arbitration, all or any part of either a

morning or afternoon session; or

(2) When appearing at a deposition, all or any part of 3.5 hours; or

(3) When appearing at an evening arbitration, all or any part of 3 hours.

(g) “Hearing” includes an appearance or proceeding before the appeals board, an arbitration, settlement

conference, Information and Assistance conference, or an appearance or proceeding before an assigned hearing

officer, or other similar settings determined by the Administrative Director to be reasonably necessary to

determine the validity and extent of injury to an injured worker, or issues related to entitlement to benefits.

(h) “Hearing officer” is the individual designated to conduct or preside at a hearing. The hearing officer may be

a Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge or arbitrator.

(i) “Medical Treatment Appointment” means an appointment with a health care provider providing medical

treatment pursuant to Labor Code section 4600.


135


(k) “Provisionally certified interpreter for hearings and depositions” means an individual deemed qualified

to interpret at hearings and depositions and have more than 5 years of experience, confirmed by LSP’s, when the

requirements in sections 9931(a) and 9933 have been met.

(l) “Provisionally certified interpreter for medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations”

means an individual deemed qualified to interpret at medical treatment appointments or medical-legal

evaluations and have more than 5 years of experience, confirmed by LSP’s when the requirements in sections

9931(a) and 9934 have been met.

(m) “Qualified interpreter” is a language interpreter providing interpreter services to an injured worker who

does not proficiently speak or understand the English language and is one of the following: (i) a certified

interpreter for hearings and depositions; or (ii) a provisionally certified interpreter for hearings and depositions

when a certified interpreter for hearings and depositions cannot be present; or (iii) a certified interpreter for

medical treatment appointments and medical-legal exams; or (iv) a provisionally certified interpreter for medical

treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations when a certified interpreter for medical treatment

appointments and medical-legal evaluations cannot be present.

Authority cited: Sections 133, 4600, 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code. Reference: Sections 4600, 4620, 4621,

5710 and 5811, Labor Code; and Sections 11435.15, 11435.20, 11435.30, 11435.35, 11435.40, 11435.55 and

68562, Government Code.


Interpreters shall be selected as set forth in this section.

(a) Certified interpreters in the languages set forth in sections 9930(a) and (b) shall be used, except when a

certified interpreter cannot be present, as provided in section 9932, after exhausting the selection procedures of

this section.

The requirements of this subdivision shall not apply to a first medical treatment appointment where the delay to

obtain a certified interpreter may pose an imminent and serious threat to the injured worker’s health.

(b) Hearings. The injured worker shall select and arrange for the presence of an interpreter.

(c) Depositions.


http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=817c44486929f6667e68bcbf14e25f29&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20CCR%209795.3%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=4&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CA%20LAB%20133&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=41992b97b0d83b73fb47eb16feac89cc

http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=817c44486929f6667e68bcbf14e25f29&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20CCR%209795.3%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=5&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CA%20LAB%204600&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=d4cf0e305d3723d5e91fc3b3be272fc4


http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=817c44486929f6667e68bcbf14e25f29&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b8%20CCR%209795.3%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=6&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CA%20GOV%2011513&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=105b8cd8940768aedb57f99eaf94737e



136


reading of a deposition transcript to the deponent prior to signing, and the reading of prior volumes of deposition

transcript in preparation for continuation of a deposition.

(d) Medical-Legal Evaluations. The employer shall select and arrange for the presence of an interpreter. If the

Interpreter selected by the Employer is not present at the time of the appointment, the injured worker has the

right to select a certified interpreter through an LSP.

(e) Medical Treatment Appointments. If the Interpreter selected by the Employer is not present at the time of the

appointment, the injured worker has the right to select a certified interpreter or provisional certified interpreter

assigned by and LSP.

For accepted claims and claims under investigation pursuant to Labor Code section 5402, interpreters shall be

selected and arranged for as follows:

(1) If the injured worker is not a covered employee, as defined in section 9767.1(a)(2), in a Medical Provider

Network (MPN), the injured worker shall have the right to select and arrange for the presence of the interpreter

through an LSP.

(2) If the injured worker is a covered employee in an MPN that does not include an ancillary interpreter provider

service, the injured worker shall select and arrange for the presence of a certified interpreter in the required

language, who is available at reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area.

(3) If the injured worker is a covered employee in an MPN that includes an ancillary interpreter provider service

that offers certified interpreting services in the language required, and there are certified interpreters in that

language available at reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area, the injured worker must select

and utilize an individual interpreter or interpreter service from the ancillary service provider list. If individual

interpreters are listed by the interpreter provider service, the injured worker shall choose which certified

interpreter to use. All interpreters provided through an MPN ancillary interpreting service provider must be

certified as defined in section 9930(b). The employer shall arrange for the presence of the employee-selected

interpreter at the medical treatment appointment.


that does not have certified interpreters available in the required language, at reasonable times and within a

reasonable geographic area, the injured worker shall select and arrange for the presence of a certified interpreter

in the required language outside the MPN, who is available at reasonable times and within a reasonable

geographic area.


represented, shall promptly select the interpreter from an LSP and notify the employer within two business days

of the selection, so the employer has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter. If the event is


137

set to occur within the next two business days, the injured worker or his/her agent, shall notify the employer of

the selection of the interpreter, on the same day the arrangement for the event was made.

(g) Employer Obligation to Notify Injured Worker of Interpreter Selection. If the employer is responsible for

selecting the interpreter, the employer shall notify the injured worker or his/her agent, if represented, at least two

business days prior to the time for the interpretation by telephone (with voice mail message if no answer), e-

mail, or text message that a qualified interpreter has been selected and will be present at the event. If the medical

treatment appointment scheduled to occur within two business days of the employer becoming aware that an

interpreter is needed, the employer shall immediately contact the employee in a manner listed above that a

qualified interpreter has been selected and will present at the event.

(h) Alternative Selection of Interpreter.

(1) If the party responsible for selecting the interpreter is unable to arrange for the presence of a qualified

interpreter, or if the employer fails to provide the notice required by subdivision (g), the other party may arrange

for a qualified interpreter by an LSP to be present and that interpreter shall be used.

(2) If neither party has arranged for the interpreter, the following procedure shall be followed:

(A) At hearings, the hearing officer shall determine if a qualified interpreter is available on the premises meeting

the requirements of this Article, and if so, that interpreter shall be used.

(B) At medical-legal evaluations or medical treatment appointments, if the medical provider has a qualified

interpreter on staff at the site available, that, an LSP interpreter shall be used.

(i) Employer Fee Obligation for Non-Compliance with Notice Requirement. If the employer was responsible for

selecting the interpreter and fails to comply with the notice requirement of subdivision (g), and two interpreters

are present at the event, one selected by the employer and one selected by the injured worker, hearing officer, or

medical provider, as provided in subdivision (h), the interpreter provided by the injured worker, hearing officer

or medical provider shall be used and the employer shall be obligated to pay for both interpreters for the full time

of the interpretation. Medical Providers are not allowed to provide interpreter because of an obvious conflict of

interest.

Authority cited: Labor Code sections 133, 4050, 4060, 4600, 4600.3, 4614, 4616, 4621, 5307.3, 5710, 5811.

Reference: Sections 3209.3, 3209.5, 3700, 4600, 4616, 4616.3, 4620, 4621, 5401; and Government Code

sections 11435.30, 11435.35, and 68562.




138

(a) A party shall contact by telephone, fax, or email at least three six interpreter service providers to request that

a certified interpreter be available at the event. Each interpreter service provider contacted must be a separate

entity. An interpreter provider service is considered a single interpreter provider service for purposes of this

section even if it that has access to, contracts with, or employs, more than one interpreter.

(b) The three six interpreter service providers contacted must be located within 60 minutes driving time or 30

miles distance from the location where the interpreter services are to be provided, except as provided in

subdivision (c). If an interpreter cannot be arrange within the 30 miles distance the employer should pay for

miles at the rate that the IRS stablish

(c) If a party cannot identify three interpreter service providers that have certified interpreters available in the

area set forth in subdivision (b) due to the rural or sparsely populated nature of the area, that party may expand

the area for locating and contacting the six three interpreter service providers to within 90 minutes driving time

or 45 miles distance from the location where the interpreter is required and If an interpreter cannot be arrange

within the 30 miles distance the employer should pay for miles at the rate that the IRS stablish

(d) A party or LSP shall keep a written record of the interpreter service providers personally contacted to obtain

a certified interpreter, including the telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, dates and times of each

contact, and the names of the individuals who indicated that the interpreter service provider had no certified

interpreters available for the event. The written record shall contain, if applicable, a statement that an interpreter

service provide did not respond to the inquiry made under subdivision (a) within one business day.


interpreter, after exhausting the requirements of this section, the alternative selection process of section 9931(h)

shall apply. If the employer is the party initially responsible and fails to comply with the notice requirements of

section 9931(g), the provisions of section 9931(i) also apply.

§9933 Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Hearings and Depositions

(a) Certified interpreters in the languages set forth in section 9930 shall be used at hearings and depositions,

except when a certified interpreter cannot be present after meeting the requirements in sections 9931 and 9932.

(b) A certified interpreter shall present his/her credential or badge with photo identification to the hearing officer,

the parties at hearings, and to the parties at depositions for their review to verify the individual is the interpreter

represented on the credential or badge.

(c) A provisionally certified interpreter selected by an LSP shall present his/her photo identification to the

hearing officer, the parties at hearings, and the parties at depositions for their review to verify the individual is

the interpreter represented on the photo identification.


139

(d) If a provisionally certified interpreter is used at an event in one of the certified languages set forth in section

9930 because a certified interpreter cannot be present, the following additional procedure shall be followed:

(1) The party initially responsible for selecting or arranging for the certified interpreter shall state on the record

that a certified interpreter cannot be present and state on the record the contact information required to be

recorded by section 9932(d); and

(2) The hearing officer shall state on the record that he/she is satisfied that a certified interpreter cannot be

present, after exhausting the selection procedures of section 9931.

(e) As to all interpreters, the hearing officer or shall determine on the record whether the prospective interpreter

has sufficient skill and is competent to interpret in the required language, whether it is a certified or non-certified

language to be deemed a certified or provisionally certified interpreter for hearings and depositions. The hearing

officer will base the decision upon the interpreter’s experience in interpreting, language training, conflict of

interest considerations, education, and interpreter’s understanding of non-disclosure and ethical requirements.

(f) All interpreters shall state on the record the following information: the interpreter’s full name, whether this is

the first or a subsequent interpretation during the same one-half day or full day time period; the number of

interpretations the interpreter has already done during the same time period; and the total number of hearings or

depositions the interpreter is scheduled to perform during the same time period. In addition, certified interpreters

shall state on the record the name of the certifying agency or LSP organization and the interpreter’s certification

credential or badge number.

(g) The hearing officer or court reporter shall swear in the interpreter with an interpreter oath.

(h) At appearances before hearing officers regarding off the record interpretations, including minute order

agreements, stipulations, and compromises and releases, the party providing the interpreter shall represent to the

hearing officer that the interpreter whose name appears in the minute order did the interpretation and that their

identity and credential has been verified.

Authority cited: Sections 133, 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code. Reference: Sections 5710 and 5811, Labor

Code; and Sections 11435.20, 11435.15, 11435.30, 11435.35, 11435.40, 11435.55, and 68562, Government

Code.


Legal Evaluations.

The following procedures shall be followed when using interpreters at medical treatment appointments and

medical-legal evaluations:


140

(a) Certified interpreters in the languages set forth in section 9930 shall be used at medical treatment

appointments and medical-legal evaluations except when a certified interpreter cannot be present, after meeting

the requirements of sections 9931 and 9932.

(b) Provisionally certified interpreters shall not be used for interpretation in the certified languages set forth in

section 9930(b), unless the employer or an LSP has given prior consent to use the interpreter in addition to the

requirements of subdivision (a).

(c) The medical provider s The LSP should determine if a proposed provisionally certified interpreter after 5

years of experience has sufficient skill to be provisionally certified to interpret in the required language.

(d) All interpreters shall provide proof of identity, and if certified, proof of certification. A certified interpreter

shall present to the medical provider his/her credential with photo identification. A provisionally certified

interpreter shall present to the medical provider his/her photo identification. The medical provider shall review

the credential and/or photo identification to verify the individual is the interpreter represented on the credential

or photo identification, and attach a copy of the credential and/or photo identification to the medical-legal exam

report or medical treatment appointment file.

(e) Interpreters shall inform the medical provider whether this is the first or subsequent interpretation during the

same one-hour medical treatment appointment time period or the same two-hour medical-legal exam time

period; the number of interpretations the interpreter has already done during the same time period; and the total

number of interpretations the interpreter is scheduled to do during the same time period. The medical provider

shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report or medical file,

Authority cited: Labor Code sections 133, 4050, 4060, 4600, 4600.3, 4614, 4616, 4620, 4621, 5307.3, 5710,

5811. Reference: Sections 3209.3, 3209.5, 3700, 4600, 4616, 4616.3, 4620, 4621, 5401; and Government Code

sections 11435.30, 11435.35, and 68562.


(a) The notice of hearing, deposition, medical-legal evaluation, or other setting shall include a statement

explaining the right to have a qualified interpreter present if the injured worker does not proficiently speak or

understand the English language. A party designated the responsibility to serve a notice shall include the

statement in the notice that a designated LSP would be securing an interpreter for the injured worker

appointment.

(b) The party or individual requiring interpreter services under the Article shall communicate the need to the

employer as soon as the need becomes known.


141

Authority cited: Sections 133, 4600, 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code; and Section 11435.60, Government

Code. Reference: Sections 4600, 4620, 4621, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code; and Sections 11435.60, 11513 and



(a) Hearings and Depositions.

(1) A qualified interpreter at hearings and depositions shall be paid the rates set forth in section 9937, provided

the billing requirements of section 9938 are met.

(2) Interpreters at hearings or depositions are entitled to one-half day or full day interpretation rates, as set forth

in section 9937, even if the interpretation time is for less time than a complete half-day or full day time period, as

those time periods are defined in sections 9930(f) and (e), respectively. Interpreter time for preparation of the

deponent immediately prior to the deposition shall be included in this time and paid accordingly.

(3) Interpreter Services beyond Eight Hours or Reading Deposition to Deponent.

(A) Interpreter services at hearings or depositions which exceed 8 hours during a full day shall be paid pro-rata

for each hour worked, even if the interpretation is for less than one additional hour, based upon the full-day rate,

for the category of interpreter used. An interpreter shall not be paid more than one hour of pro-rata hourly, full-

day rate, for each hour worked beyond 8 hours in a full day.

(B) Interpreters reading the deponent the deposition prior to signing, or reading of prior volumes to the deponent

in preparation for a continued deposition, shall be paid the equivalent of one hour of the full day deposition rate

for the category of interpreter used, for the first hour of interpretation and thereafter in pro-rata in 15 minute

increments. In no case shall an interpreter be paid more than the one hour of the pro-rata hourly, for each hour of

interpretation for events under this subdivision.

(4) Cancellation fees. Unless the party responsible for providing for the interpreter notifies the interpreter of a

cancellation at least 24 hours prior to the time the service is to be provided, the interpreter shall be paid no less

than the minimum one-half day fee as set forth in section 9937. It shall be the obligation of the injured worker to

make every reasonable attempt to notify the employer in sufficient time of any need to cancel the services of an

interpreter.

(5) American Sign Language. Fees for interpreter services in American Sign Language at hearings shall be

governed by California Code of Regulations, title 8, Article 1.3, “Public Disability Accommodations”, Chapter

4.5, commencing with section 9708.1 et. seq.

(b) Medical Treatment Appointments or Medical-Legal Evaluations.


142

(1) A qualified interpreter at medical treatment appointments or medical-legal evaluation shall be paid the rates

set forth in sections 9937, provided the billing requirements of section 9938 are met.

(2) The fees payable for interpreter services at medical treatment appointments or medical-legal evaluations shall

be paid based upon the rates set forth section 9937, and shall be computed based upon the total number of

interpretations at medical treatment appointments or medical-legal evaluations conducted during the same one-

hour or two-hour time period, respectively.

(3) Interpreters are entitled to the minimum one-hour 2 hours rate at medical treatment appointments and the

minimum of two-hour rate at medical-legal evaluations.

(4) Interpretations at second or successive medical treatment appointments or medical-legal evaluations should

be paid at the rate of 2 hours minimum. that overlap with the first interpretation time period, but are not

completed during the first interpretation time period, are considered separate, billable, time periods, to which the

interpreter is entitled to bill an additional one-hour or two-hour fee, respectively.

(5) If interpreting at the same medical treatment appointment or medical-legal evaluation exceeds the two hour

one-hour or two-hour minimum time period, respectively, the interpreter shall be paid an additional amount, pro-

rata, in fifteen (15) minute increments, for time interpreting beyond the minimum one or two hour time period.

(6) Cancellation fees. Unless the party responsible for providing for an interpreter at a medical treatment

appointment or the medical-legal evaluation notifies the interpreter of a cancellation at least 24 hours prior to the

time the service is to be provided, the interpreter shall be entitled to be paid no less the equivalent of two one

hour of compensation for each medical treatment appointment cancelled and two hours of compensation for each

medical-legal exam cancelled.

(c) Computation of Billing Fees at Multiple Hearings, Depositions, Medical Treatment Appointments, or

Medical-Legal Exams during the Same Time Period.

(1) Fees for interpreter services for the second and each successive interpretation during the same time period as

the initial interpretation shall each be billed at 75% of billing rate of the first interpretation, as set forth in section

9937. The total fee amount owed to the interpreter for all interpretations done during the same time period is the

total of the first interpretation fee plus 75% of that fee for each additional interpretation during the same time

period. The total fee amount shall then be divided by the number of interpretations done during the same time

period. The resulting dollar amount is the interpreter fee owed for each interpretation done during the same time

period. The interpreter shall bill each claims administrator based upon the number of interpretations done for

that claims administrator during the same time period.

(2) If there is a fee agreement between an interpreter service provider and employer for a greater or lesser fee

than set forth in section 9937, as permitted by subdivision (d), the interpreter shall bill that employer based upon

the agreement. However that fee agreement shall not be used to compute the total fee amount referenced in


143

subdivision (c)(1) to be billed to employers with whom the interpreter service provider does not have a separate

fee agreement.

(d) Nothing in this section precludes an agreement for payment of interpreter services, made between the

interpreter or agency for interpreting services and the employer, regardless of whether or not such payment is

less than, or exceeds, the fees set forth in this section and section 9937.

Authority cited: Sections 133, 4600, 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code; and Sections 11435.25 and 11435.60,

Government Code. Reference: Sections 4600, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code; Sections 11138, 11435.15, 11435.20,

11435.25, 11435.30, 11435.55, 11435.40, 11435.55, 11435.60, and 68562, Government Code; California Code

of Regulations, Title 8, Article 1.3, Chapter 4.5, Sections 9708.1 et. seq.


The following billing codes and rates shall be used to compute billing for interpreter services, except for fee rates

reached by mutual agreement or excluded, as set forth in sections 9936 (a)(5) and (d) and shall applied staring

January 1, 2019 and never retroactive.

HEARINGS AND DEPOSITIONS

Dollar Rate

First Hearing During Time

Slot

Additional

Hearing(s)

In Same Time Slot

HDI - 1 Interpretation at a Workers’

Compensation Appeals Board

Hearing by a certified interpreter for

hearings and depositions.

Half day = $355.00 255.00

Full day = $710.00 448.00

More than 8 hrs., pro-rate added

hours, in 1 hour increments.

$191.25 each

$336.00 each



Hearing by a provisionally certified

interpreter for hearings and

depositions.

Half day = $141.00

Full day = $232.00

More than 8 hrs. pro-rate added

hours in 1 hour increments.

$105.75

$174.00

HDI - 3 Interpretation at a setting similar to a

Workers’ Compensation Appeals

Board Hearing, as determined by the

Administrative Director, by a

certified interpreter for hearings and

depositions.

Half day = $355.00 255.00

Full day = $710.00 448.00



$191.25 each

$336.00 each





provisionally certified interpreter for


Half day = $141.00

Full day = $232.00


hours in one-hour increments.

$105.75

$174.00






144

HDI - 5 Interpretation at an arbitration or I &

A conference by a certified


depositions.

Half day = $355.00 255.00

Full day = $710.00 448.00



$191.25 each

$336.00 each


A conference by a provisionally


depositions.

Half day = $141.00

Full day = $232.00

Exceeding 8 hrs. in one day, pro-

rata thereafter in one-hour

increments.

$105.75

$174.00

HDI - 7 Interpretation at a deposition of an

injured worker or witness, by a


depositions. Includes time for

deponent preparation immediately

prior to deposition.

Half day = $355.00 255.00

Full day = $710.00 448.00



increments.

N/A




hearings and depositions. Includes

time for deponent preparation

immediately prior to deposition.

Half-day = $141.00

Full day = $232.00



increments.

N/A

HDI - 9 Reading deposition to deponent by a

certified interpreter prior to signing

or reading prior volumes of

depositions to deponent in

preparation for continued deposition.

Minimum one hour pro-rata rate,

based upon the full day rate of

$710.00 448. Pro-rata thereafter,

in 15 minute increments.

N/A

HDI-10 Reading deposition to deponent by a

provisionally certified interpreter

prior to signing or reading prior

volumes of depositions to deponent

in preparation for continued

deposition.

Minimum on- hour pro-rata rate,


$464.00 232.00. Pro-rata

thereafter, in 15 minute

increments.

MEDICAL TREATMENT

APPOINTMENT

Dollar Rate

First Appointment During

Time Slot

Additional

Appointment(s)

In Same Time Slot

MTI - 1 Interpretation at a medical treatment

appointment by a certified interpreter

for medical treatment appointments

and medical-legal evaluations.

$110.00 86.50 per hr., with one-

hour minimum. Pro-rata


increments.

$110.00 64.88 per hr.,

with

One-hour minimum.

Pro-rata thereafter, in

15 minute increments.


145


appointment by a provisionally

certified interpreter for medical

treatment appointments and medical-

legal exams.

$90.00 57.75 per hr., with one-



increments.

$90.00 43.31 per hr.,

with

One-hour minimum.



MEDICAL-LEGAL

EVALUATION

Dollar Rate

First Exam During Time Slot

Additional Exam(s)

In Same Time Slot

MLI - 1 Interpretation at a medical-legal

evaluation, a comprehensive medical-

legal evaluation, follow-up medical-

legal evaluation, or an examination

by the physician to which an injured

worker submits at the request of the

claims administrator, the

administrative director, or the appeals

board, by a certified interpreter for

medical treatment appointments and

medical-legal evaluations.

$86.50 per hr., with two-hour

minimum of $173.00. Pro-rata

hourly rate thereafter, in 15

minute increments.

$64.88 per hr., with

Two-hour minimum of

$129.75.

Pro-rata hourly rate

thereafter, in 15

minute increments.



legal evaluation, or follow-up

medical-legal evaluation, or an

examination by the physician to

which an injured worker submits at

the request of the claims

administrator, the administrative

director, or the appeals board, by a




$57.75 per hr., with two-hour

minimum of $115.50. Pro-rata

hourly rate thereafter, in 15

minute increments.


Two-hour minimum of

$86.62. Pro-rata

hourly.

Rate thereafter, in


Authority cited: Sections 133, 4607.2(b), 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code. Reference: Sections 4600,

4603.2(b)(1), 4620, 4621, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code; and Sections 11435.25, 11435.30, 11435.35, 11435.40,

11435.55, 11513 and 68562, Government Code.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Roberto Nabaza April 13, 2018


146

I believe in my humble opinion that these proposed Interpreter Regulations are a violation of civil rights

1. It violates my rights as an interpreter by limiting what I can charge for my services and the amount of

cases I can handle. It lowers the fees for board appearances, unheard of in an inflationary context, on

the assumption that the interpreter will be handling more than one case at a time. It puts a hand in my

pocket and hurts my livelihood, something that is contrary to our spirit in this country. Also, in the

case of an interpreter appearing for 2 or 3 simultaneous hearings at the Board, how is the order of the

cases going to be determined as to decide which company pays what amount, when different

insurance companies are involved?

2. It violates the rights of the injured worker when it bars the applicant from having a different

interpreter for the deposition preparation. This is something the applicant’s attorneys should address.

We all want to believe that all interpreters are professional enough not to break confidentiality

regarding what was said during preparation. However, we’ve had horror stories to the contrary in the

past of interpreters breaking that confidentiality, which led to include in the code the preparation of

the deponent before the deposition as a separate issue. Eliminating this would undermine attorney

client privilege, it creates a clear disadvantage for non English speaking applicants, and would most

definitely be a step backward.

3. Furthermore, this whole fee schedule would violate the rights of the workers by creating a market of

second class interpreters for what, second class applicants? I believe it should be the other way

around. Interpreter’s monetary compensation has fallen behind and should actually be increased to

promote better conditions. This would entice students to follow this career and thus have more and

better interpreters for a constantly growing population.

4. Last but foremost, the State should be the guardian of these civil rights, not the violator.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Milena Calderari-Waldron April 13, 2018

Spanish Interpreter

I write to express my concerns on your proposed changes to the workers’ compensation interpreter

services. As proposed, there would be one single fee for interpreting services regardless of the language

needed. The interpreting marketplace is ruled by laws of supply and demand where interpreters (sellers)

are the supply and workers’ compensation appointments are the demand (buyers). Each language has its

own market place.


147

1) Spanish, for example, is a Competitive Market where there is a high number of certified

interpreters as well as a high number of requests.

2) In contrast, Russian is a Buyers’ Market because even though there are numerous certified

interpreters the requests decrease every year.

3) Vietnamese, on the other hand, is a Sellers’ Market because there are few certified interpreters

but there is a relatively high number of requests.

4) There is No Market for many Languages of Low Demand, such as Kinyarwanda and Dinka,

because there aren’t enough requests per month in these languages to support even one single interpreter.

Accordingly, DWC should pay a much higher rate for Languages of Low Demand thus tempting

potential interpreters into the market. In summary, in interpreting services, one fee does not fit all

languages alike.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Luis Echeverry, President/CEO April 13, 2018

Continental Interpreting Services, Inc.

As the owner of an interpreting agency located and doing business in California for the past 26 years, I

have numerous issues I feel should be addressed with regards to these new regulations and proposed fee

schedule.

For starters, these regulations need to make a distinction between an interpreter and a Language Service

Company (LSC). Most of the services provided by interpreters for medical, med-legal and legal settings

in connection to a Workers’ Compensation cases are coordinated through LSCs. In most cases, the party

that needs the services of an interpreter, usually an employee at a law firm or a claims adjuster (the

client), will call an LSC to schedule the services of an interpreter. It is rare for a client to call individual

interpreters in an effort to coordinate these services. Once the client contacts an LSC requesting services,

that LSC will search for available adequately certified interpreters, book the interpreter best suited for the

assignment based on qualifications and location, confirm with the client or the doctor’s office (or both)

the day before the assignment to make sure there are no changes, confirm with the interpreter the day

before so there are no surprises, obtain a report from the interpreter in regards to the completed

assignment, use that information to bill the insurance carrier or responsible party, pay the interpreter for

his or her services and spend many more man hours collecting from the carriers or TPAs for services

rendered by their interpreters. These processes require lots of manpower on the part of the LSC. It is


148

important to keep in mind that the rates suggested in this fee schedule are those that the LSCs will be

billing for interpreting services rendered. Therefore, it will be up to the LSCs to negotiate the rates that

they will pay the interpreters directly with the interpreters they contract with. With that in mind, if an

LSC is limited to billing $255 for a half day deposition and $448 for a full day deposition, the rates that

the LSCs will have to negotiate with the interpreters they contract with for services will be considerable

low for a highly skilled professional. My suggestion is that of a fee of $150 per hour for Spanish

depositions with a two hour minimum. For languages other than Spanish, the LSPs should be able to

negotiate an hourly fee with the Claims Administrators prior to providing services for any particular

setting.

I feel it is irresponsible to allow medical certified interpreters that are not trained for legal settings to

interpret at hearings, depositions or other legal settings. Only Administrative Hearing Certified

Interpreters, California Court Certified Interpreters or Federally Certified interpreters should be allowed

to interpret at any legal workers compensation proceeding. If good cause is shown, then provisionally

certified interpreters should be allowed to interpret at these legal proceedings.

In regards to the definitions for a half day, we need to address depositions. It is not realistic for an

interpreter to commit for 3.5 hours for a half day deposition and here is the reason why. Most morning

depositions begin at 10:00 am and afternoon depositions at 1:00, 1:30 or 2:00 pm. Morning depositions

are a lot more common than afternoon depositions. If an interpreter is booked for a morning deposition at

a particular location that is to begin at 10:00 am, that interpreter will be committed to be at that location

until 1:30 pm. After that the interpreter needs to take a lunch break and commute to another location for

an afternoon assignment. This means that the interpreter will not be able to take an afternoon assignment

unless that afternoon assignments starts sometime around 2:30 pm or later. Nobody schedules afternoon

depositions to begin at 2:30 pm. Also, most depositions in Workers Compensation cases last about 2

hours. I believe a better approach is to allow depositions to be billed by the hour and to make it a two

hour minimum. If the client feels that they need to schedule an interpreter for a deposition that will last

longer than two hours than they can commit the services of the interpreter for a longer period of time the

same way the interpreters are booked for medical assignments. Having a two hour minimum for

depositions will not limit interpreters to only one assignment per day if they commit to a morning

deposition.

In regards to the 24 hour cancellation policy, it is important to add the following language: excluding

weekends or holidays. This way if a deposition that is scheduled for a Monday morning is cancelled on a

Friday afternoon, the interpreter will still be compensated for a late cancellation.

As to fees for other than Spanish (exotic languages), with the proposed rates it will be almost impossible

for LSCs to hire certified interpreters for languages other than Spanish. This has to do with the simple

law of economics known as “supply and demand”. There are very few certified interpreters for languages

other than Spanish in California. If we negotiate a ridiculously low price for their services for Workers

Compensation cases, they simply will turn down any Workers Compensation assignments and take only


149

those that are for civil litigation which pay better. This means the injured employees that speak languages

other than Spanish will not have access to certified interpreters for their hearings, depositions, medical or

med-legal appointments.

I also oppose §9932(a)(3) which gives the Claims Administrator (in reality the claims adjusters) the

authority to choose non-certified interpreters over certified interpreters just because they authorize it.

Non-certified interpreters should not be used for any proceedings, unless good cause is shown. Also, only

three attempts to secure the services of a certified interpreter is not enough when there are plenty of

certified Spanish interpreters throughout California to reduce the search to only three attempts.

I also feel we need some clarification on §9998 (a) (12). It states: A declaration by the interpreter stating:

“I declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this report and its attachments, if

any, is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” The declaration shall be signed and

dated by the interpreter and indicate the county and state in which it was signed. Shouldn’t such a

declaration be signed by the LSC that hired the interpreter since it is the LSC that will be submitting the

bill for language services provided?

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Araceli Rubio April 13, 2018

Our livelihood is in danger. We all interpreters are professionals and have worked hard. We do not want

the new proposed regulations that will lower our fees and control how many assignments we can cover in

a single assignment.

CWCIA CWCIA Fee Schedule










150















I oppose to the following specific sections:





9767.3 Requirements for a MPN: Please add language allowing for Interpreter Service Providers

(ISPs) and interpreters to be notified when an MPN chooses to provide INTERPRETING as ancillary

services.

REASON:


providing services outside the MPN. The way things are currently, interpreters are the last to

know and find out only after having provided the services.







151



depositions”

Reason:

Because interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website who possess the medical certification

are precluded from interpreting in the legal setting.

Under §9930. Definitions: (e) “Full day" means interpreting services performed which exceed

one half-day, up to 8 hours. CHANGE TO 7 HOURS

Reason:




at our meeting of November 2016, interpreting is a unique, cognitively demanding activity that

requires breaks. Refer to the DEFINITION under Section 3.1.1 and Section 7.6 NUMBER OF

INTERPRETERS REQUIRED


(f) “Half-day" means: (2) When appearing at a deposition, all or any part of 3.5 hours; CHANGE TO 3

HOURS and ADHERE TO A HALF DAY MORNING AND AFTERNOON DEFINITION FOR

DEPOSITIONS, i.e: 8:30 am to 12:00 pm AND 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm

Reason:


time is 12:00, then 1:30 and 5:00 respectively, but not for depositions which take place

in different locations. Interpreters need time for lunch, and to travel from morning to afternoon

assignments, which often take place in differing locations. Please refer to the En Banc Decision of

Guitron vs. Santa Fe Extruders/ SCIF and the Mercedes Osuna BAK 141379 case


152


AFTER (h) “Hearing officer” ADD: INTERPRETER SERVICE PROVIDER (ISP)

Reason:

Because the reality is that most freelance interpreters don’t bill carriers directly. Agencies do a lot of





(j) “Medical-Legal Evaluation” means an evaluation as defined in sections 9793(c) and (g). CHANGE

TO: Medical-Legal Evaluations & Consultations

Reason:

Because medical-legal consultations also exist



Reason:

Because all assignments require that interpreters travel to the site where the services will be performed.

Because other providers in the system, including defense attorneys, who must travel are compensated for

Under §9930. Definitions: Add definition for: NO SHOW FEES

Reason:

Because it is an industry standard for interpreter professionals who reserve time for a given service to be




153





represented, shall promptly select the interpreter and notify the employer within two business

days of the selection, so the employer has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter

Reason:

Because on section 9931 (4) (f): it says that the employer has to be notified within two days that the



contradictory.



Reason:









Reason:


154

Because this represents a huge conflict of interest. Because a staff interpreter’s ethical requirement to be




interpreter.





Reason:

Because this requirement is too low and it facilitates the employer’s preferred vendor, who often asks for









business day.

Reason:






155

services.



this is the first or a subsequent interpretation during the same one-half day or full day

time period; the number of interpretations the interpreter has already done during the same time period;

and the total number of hearings or depositions the interpreter is scheduled to perform during the same

time period. In addition, certified interpreters shall state on the record the name of the certifying agency

or organization and the interpreter’s certification credential or badge number.

Reason:

Because the practical application of this is simply not feasible. There are all too often unforeseen

circumstances including cancellations, add ons, the I&A officers requesting last minute interpretation,

etc.




hearing before the WCAB, not to mention an accusation of perjury. Because this places an undue burden

on the hearing officers and the certified interpreters who are engaged in servicing the LEP injured worker

and those who need to communicate with her. Hearing officers verifying credentials is one thing.

Policing of certified interpreters as set forth by this section is an insult to the profession.


Medical-Legal Evaluations:



Reason:


whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter? This is simply absurd The interpreter




156

to AD Parisotto and Staff Counsel Hersh warning about the dangers and recommending an

alternative to this misguided notion. Because this is a very dangerous proposal that risks trampling on

the limited English proficient injured worker’s civil right to meaningful access to government services as

protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964









Reason: Because certified interpreters are concerned about their credentials and personal information

being circulated in medical report distribution. There is enough fraud as it is with unscrupulous

noncertified interpreters and the agencies who send them posing as certified interpreters. Because the

medical provider has access to the internet and can verify the names of the certified interpreters on the

websites listings. Because the medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the employer objecting to

pay an interpreter’s bill Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already requires this information





during the same one-hour medical treatment appointment time period or the same two-hour medical legal


period ; The medical provider shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report

or medical file.

Reason:

Because frequently, scheduled assignments and the actual outcome are different. There is no way for an

interpreter or ISP to know how long an assignment is expected to last. Guesstimating how


157

many assignments within a one-hour period is impossible. This will be labor intensive for the medical

provider and the interpreter. The medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the employer

objecting to pay an interpreter’s bill.

§9936. Computation of Fees:

THIS ENTIRE SECTION!

Reason:

Because interpreters should be entitled to some minimum amount in order to ensure that a particular









greater respect, equal pay and improved working conditions in this fast-growing industry.



They can have a P.A., and treat patients concurrently, and still bill at the fee schedule for each

appointment. Attorneys at the WCAB do not prorate their fees to different clients. Restaurants do not

charge less on busy nights. Jiffy-lube doesn’t charge less the more customers they service in

any given hour. This is discriminatory.

§9937. Billing Fees and Codes:

Add billing code for review and signing of settlement documents at informal settings

Reason:




158


THIS ENTIRE SECTION

Reason:

Because these “one size fits all” fees do not work for all languages in all geographical locations. Why not






availability to the injured worker. Additionally these interpreters must travel long distances to preform

services. Many LLD interpreters have expressed that these proposed fees would drive them out of

workers’ compensation and into other industries with better compensation. Because the two-hour



§9938. Interpreter Billing Requirements for Payment:





Reason:




performed the services cannot.


159

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Pilar Garcia, President April 13, 2018

Statewide Interpreters Corp.

A Certified Minority Owned Business by NMSDC

Enclosed please find the following suggestions to the proposed language:





9931.


(c)(3):

There is the need for language requiring that MPNs provide a LIST of individual certified interpreters.

This is essential to change the current practice by MPNs to only list LSPs (Language service providers)

and not individual certified interpreters. In 2015 and 2016, CWCIA presented to the DWC Director

ample evidence of systematic violations of the certification requirement by these networks. If an


the existence of CERTIFIED individuals in their network by listing individual interpreters, not just LSPs.

There should also be an entry mechanism for individuals and not only mega-corporations to be able to

enroll and participate in it.










MPN.


160






(f) Half-Day means:









workers.















interpreter”.


161









injured worker.



















162






















Overburdening the Judges and doctors with administrative requirements that are practically impossible

to comply with.

It does not allow for the difference between an individual working/billing the employer directly, and

an interpreter working through an agency (LSP).

It does not solve the issue of constantly changing circumstances either at the WCAB or at doctor’s





Court reporters are scarce these days. Does the record need to be modified? What if the only court



163

What if an interpreter is covering a hearing for one LSP and an emergency arises where they have to

cover a case for another LSP? Why should the first LSP take a pay cut? Should the interpreter then


What if an LSP has concurrent events at the same time at various WCABs. Does the LSP have to


Have you considered the possibility of a separate interpreter servicing each and every separate job


Defense attorneys appear at the WCAB on various cases on a given day all the time. It is very



Free-lance interpreters are independent contractors, not employees! A fee regulation is permissible

















Here are some:



164






Superior and Federal Court Interpreters have no overhead. We do. Many interpreters and LSPs

must pay bookkeepers, self-employment insurance, lien reps, lien fees, extraordinary mileage and travel

costs, administrative and other expenses that the proposed fee is not factoring in.

Even per diem Court Interpreters become eligible for benefits after they work a set amount of

hours per year. Free-lance interpreters have absolutely NO BENEFITS. They must buy their own health

insurance, have no sick-day or vacation pay, employer contribution for retirement and certainly none of

the protections that an employee has under Labor Laws.

Northern California’s cost of living, interpreter availability and travel distances differ greatly

from Southern California. Please refer to the Berkeley Study Group recommendations and their frequent

use of the term ‘fair market value’. We predict a huge exodus of certified professionals from the

Workers Compensation arena, which will affect injured workers detrimentally. We understand and agree

with the need for a set rate to prevent some abuses that ‘market rate’ rules have caused. However, it is

essential to allow for fee modifiers or ‘supplements” for certain high cost areas where the above factors

render the current proposed fees unsustainable for language professionals and LSPs.

This is why we urge the DIR to introduce a geographical modifier for high-cost areas to be added

to the base amounts that have been proposed. An extra billable amount based on averages of current

reasonable fees. This will still provide a ceiling for fees while at the same time will sustain interpreter

availability in such areas, and will avoid a foreseen negative impact on limited English proficient injured

workers in many area.

Other remarks:






____________________________________________________________________________________

_


165

Marisa del Rio April 13, 2018

CMI- Spanish

The fee structure being proposed has two critical issues. 1) The leniency for insurance agencies to

"provisionally certify" interpreters and 2) the one-hour minimum proposed for interpreters.

We understand that injured workers with limited English proficiency have a right to medical treatment

and need to understand what is being said to them.

We also understand that insurance companies have a mandate to save money. In the fee structure

proposed, there is a continued underlying motivation for insurance adjusters to not use certified

interpreters. If an insurance company can save $30 an hour by using a non-certified interpreter, they will.

What does this mean to the patient with limited English proficiency? That there is no standard for

language accuracy and therefore their rights are not being adequately protected.

The exam process for interpreter certification is not easy but essential. In order to pass the certification

exam, such critical issues as ethics and confidentiality are addressed. The accuracy of language must be

ascertained in order to pass the exam. As a certified interpreter, I have overhead non-certified interpreters

make egregious language mistakes. I have also heard from medical offices that when a non-certified

interpreter needs to google a word in order to know the translation, that doctors are understandably

chagrined having to wait for the non-certified interpreter to find the correct word to use.

Additionally, the one hour minimum is a further complication. There is only one doctor in my city who

sees patients at the time they're scheduled. ALL OTHER DOCTORS generally take more than an hour

before a patient is seen. If the proposed fee schedule goes through changing the fees to a one-hour

minimum, scheduling will be a nightmare. Interpreters would have to accept assignments for one hour

and then if the doctor takes more than an hour before they see a patient, which the vast majority of

doctors do, the interpreter would have to leave before the patient is seen. A one-hour minimum would

only work if doctors were required to see a patient within the hour the patient is scheduled.

In order for patients with limited English proficiency to have their rights protected, the Department of

Workman's Compensation needs to understand that someone who considers themselves to be "bilingual"

does not necessarily mean that they can accurately interpret having not passed an exam. Also, that rarely

does a doctor see a patient within the hour they are scheduled.


166

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Connie Harmon April 13, 2018

I believe what has come out from the DWC regarding the fee schedule for interpreters is either unethical

or no understanding of what interpreters undergo. This applies to the one hour the DWC is proposing to

the fee schedule. The interpreter will be unable to earn a living to the DWC's proposal.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Flavia Lima April 13, 2018

Translator and Interpreter

Approved Immigration Court Interpreter

Registered State Court Interpreter (Tampa Bay Area, Florida)

Court Registered Interpreter-Portuguese

Registered in Arizona and Florida

I am an independent court registered interpreter, experienced in my field and dependent on the income

derived from serving in this highly skilled profession, and would like you to please note that:

There are many terms and conditions that need to be negotiated. One, for example, is that of the DWC

considering 3.5 hours as half day and 8 hours as full day.

This is not workable in Southern California or in Arizona or in Florida because distances for independent

court certified interpreters traveling from one hearing to another can be great. An independent

interpreter often travels more 100 miles in a day to service their clients. Travel time is another point that

needs to always be negotiable. I suggest: up to 3 1/4 hours = half day up to 6 hours = full day. Section

9930(a) is problematic as it states that a certified interpreter for hearings and depositions is "an individual

listed as a certified interpreter for administrative hearings, medical examinations or state court

proceedings on the Sate Personnel Board website or is listed as a certified interpreter on the California

Courts website." This can be interpreted as giving license to a medical interpreter to interpret at hearings

and depositions. I am sure this was not the intention of the author of this subsection. Due to that fact that

these are matters that truly affect my profession as a freelance interpreter, in addition to the fact that as a

freelancer, the agencies that hire me take a substantial cut (30 to 50%) for themselves, I respectfully

submit the above concerns to you.


167

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Natalya Mytareva, CCHI Executive Director April 13, 2018

Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI)

As Executive Director of the Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI), I wanted to

offer our comments on the proposed regulations governing interpreter services for workers compensation

cases. We greatly appreciate the recognition of the Department and Division of the validity and

credibility of CCHI’s examination by its inclusion in the proposed regulations. As you may know, as of

2018, CCHI was the only healthcare interpreter certification organization to receive national accreditation

from the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA).

We wish to submit the following comments for clarification. The proposed regulation states in §9930 (b)

(3):

“Has a valid and current Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI)

certification/credential in Spanish, Mandarin, or Arabic.”

CCHI offers two certification credentials – the Certified Healthcare Interpreter™ (CHI™) certification

(currently available in Spanish, Arabic and Mandarin), and the Core Certification Healthcare

Interpreter™ (CoreCHI™) certification (available for interpreters of all other languages). The

CoreCHI™ certification is accredited by NCCA as a stand-alone certification (search the online NCCA

registry by CCHI acronym at http://www.credentialingexcellence.org/p/cm/ld/fid=121). If the regulation

only requires the CHI certification in the specified languages, it may be too narrow to ensure healthcare

interpreters achieve the highest credential available to them. We do strongly believe that the Division

should also accept the CoreCHI™ certification credential as valid under the “certified interpreters for

medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluation.” The CoreCHI™ certification is the

highest available credential to healthcare interpreters of any language and tests their knowledge about

medical interpreting, including medical terminology, interpreter code of ethics, HIPAA, critical thinking

abilities, etc. The CoreCHI™ certification exams are available for testing at any time throughout a year

(except major holidays) and, currently, at 26 locations in California; the cost is $210.

We propose the following change to §9930 (b):

“(3) Has a valid and current Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI)

certification/credential - the Certified Healthcare Interpreter™ (CHI™) in Spanish, Mandarin, or Arabic,

or the CoreCHI™ certification.”

Additionally, we believe, given the complex nature of worker compensation cases and the availability of

the CoreCHI™ certification for interpreters of any language, only certified interpreters should be used

http://www.credentialingexcellence.org/p/cm/ld/fid=121


168

for medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluation. We strongly oppose giving the

authority to the “medical provider” to determine if an individual “has sufficient skill to be provisionally

certified to interpret in the required language” (§9934 (c)). Medical providers do not have appropriate

linguistic education, they are not qualified speakers in every language a potential patient may speak, and

they are not interpreters, thus, they do not possess any skills necessary to evaluate interpreting abilities of

any individual. National certification of healthcare interpreters is a valid, credible and readily-available

assessment for medical interpreters of any language.

Therefore, we propose to strike out the following definition (l) and delete any corresponding references to

this throughout the regulations:

“(l) “Provisionally certified interpreter for medical treatment appointments and medical-legal

evaluations” means an individual deemed qualified to interpret at medical treatment appointments or

medical-legal evaluations when the requirements in sections 9931(a) and 9934 have been met.”

We trust you will consider the consequences of potentially life-threatening circumstances, where errors or

omissions are committed by non-certified interpreters.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Cecilia Tello April 13, 2018






9931.


(c)(3):







169













MPN.


(c) The elimination of ‘medical examinations’ as a certification valid at hearings and depositions is




(f) Half-Day means:









workers.






170











interpreter”.









injured worker.










171










(d) It is recommended that this section be modified to read:






















172

Overburdening the Judges and doctors with administrative requirements that are practically impossible

to comply with.

It does not allow for the difference between an individual working/billing the employer directly, and



















Free-lance interpreters are independent contractors, not employees! A fee regulation is permissible













173






Here are some:



interpreting assignment doesn’t end when the event ends. Thereafter this assignment must be

laboriously invoiced, served, appealed, frequently subjected to the costs and delays of IBR.

Sometimes interpreters go for years without seeing a single dollar of pay for a simple WCAB

appearance they did. Court interpreters get their check at the end of the month.




















Other remarks:


174






Thank you for your time and consideration,

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Joan Jurado-Blanco April 13, 2018

California Medical and Administrative Hearing Interpreter

Chair CWCIA (California Workers’ Compensation Interpreter Association

Northern California Chapter

As the Chairwoman of the Northern Chapter of the CWCIA (California Workers Compensation

Interpreter’s Association) I have taken to the task of not only listening to my fellow colleagues, attorneys

and doctors, but also the perspective of employers and defense attorneys. I understand the duty to

produce a simplified code and I recognize the need to reduce liens and to curb abuses. Most importantly

though, I am concerned about the impact that these Regulations will have on the limited English

proficient injured worker.

Based on such concerns, please find my comments to the latest version of the Interpreter Regulations and

Fee Schedule:


Why is all the control of interpreter selection being granted to the Employer? There are many cases

where the applicant attorney schedules the QME exam - accordingly, has to send notices to all parties

- the same party scheduling the interpreter beforehand is the simplest, most logical way to

proceed. Also, giving the employer that much control over interpreter selection perpetuates the

systematic use of substandard interpreting services, especially when combined with rules proposed in

Section 9932 (b)(c) and (d).




175


9931


(c)(3):











interpreters is available, yet they cannot work directly for the MPN because there is no way for them to

be incorporated or individually listed.



interpreter regulations have been written. There is negligible mention of LSPs in these proposed



MPN.


The following is strongly recommended:

(a) The elimination of ‘medical examinations’ as a certification valid at hearings and depositions. At

the same time, Federal Court Certification should be added to this section.

(e) A redefinition of the Full day - A full day, even in Superior Court, does not consist of 8 hours. It is

actually 7. There are 2 sessions of 3.5 hours each, allowing breaks and 1 hour for lunch.

(f) A redefinition of Half Day for Depositions is URGED:


from 8:30-noon, and half day (afternoon) from 1 PM on. Depositions are problematic in that most of

them begin at 10 am or 11 am, unlike hearings which start at 8:30 AM or 1:30 PM. The proposed

definition of a deposition will require an interpreter to commit 3.5 hours of the most productive hours of

their day to only ONE event for one flat fee. From a financial standpoint, it seems unrealistic and

unreasonable and it will deter any interpreter to take work at depositions as it limits their ability to accept


176

any other work around it. This is surely to lead to a massive rejection of deposition work by certified

interpreters which in turn, will have a detrimental effect on Limited English Proficient (LEP hereafter)

injured workers.


In the workers compensation world, all LSPs, big and small, provide a valuable service equivalent to the

job and responsibilities of State Interpreter Coordinators. Interpreter Coordinators are government paid

positions and as such, LSPs should be allowed a margin of operational profit for all the work they do.



arrange for the presence of an interpreter”. It seems illogical to ask defense to be in charge of scheduling

meetings between applicant attorneys and injured workers as to when, where and how the deposition

review will take place.


an MPN ancillary service provider’ to be certified. It does not, however, as mentioned in comments for

Section 97967.3, require a procedure for individual interpreters to apply or be included in such network.



interpreter”.









injured worker. If an employer, through its MPN cannot produce a certified interpreter, the option

to select and arrange an interpreter should go to the injured worker, with all the required notifications to

the employer.







177



party to contact ONLY 3 interpreters is not enough to stop these abuses!













(a)(3)(B) The deposition review proposed fee is not adequate or realistic. The proposed amount ($56) is

a less than services by an uncertified medical interpreter. Just as in the deposition itself, transcript

reviews must be done with the assistance of a certified interpreter for legal settings, and as such, they

should be paid accordingly. The fee should be equal to the legal fee with a 2 hour minimum to account

for the time that the interpreter must take to get to the site of the review, serve corrections sheets to all

parties, etc.

Please remember that injured worker’s testimony is under oath, that errors in transcripts can impact their

credibility in court and medical evaluations. Deposition reviews should not be taken lightly and should

and must be treated with the same seriousness and commitment to professional language as a

deposition. Not doing so is putting the injured worker at a disadvantage from making necessary

corrections to his/her testimony. Unless these are paid accordingly, no competent, certified interpreter

will be willing to accept these assignments.






· Overburdening the judges and doctors with administrative requirements that are practically


· It does not allow for the difference between an individual working/billing the employer directly,



178




then a defense attorney needs their services for an unforeseen settlement. What happens?

· Court reporters are scarce these days. Does the record need to be constantly modified? What if the

only court reporter of the day is busy with a trial? What if the doctor had to leave?

· What if an interpreter is covering a hearing for one LSP and an emergency arises where they have

to cover a case for another LSP? Why should the first LSP take a pay cut? Should the interpreter then






· Don’t defense attorneys appear in multiple cases at the same time as well? Are they being forced

to present sworn statements and to prorate their bills?



Employer have the authority to control their work schedules?

· For instance, even if MPN doctors have their set fees, the State does not dictate how many patients

a day they can see nor are they asked to prorate their fees if they happen to get an last minute extra

patient in the same time frame.







CODES: Thank you very much for creating uniform billing codes!

FEES:

As an interpreter working in Northern California, I offer the following recommendations. Although it is

appreciated that proposed fees are somewhat based on Superior and Federal court rates, it is ESSENTIAL

that a geographical rate modifier/ supplement be added. There is a host of differences between court

employees and per diems and workers compensation interpreters.

Among them:



interpreting assignment doesn’t end when the event ends. After the interpreter walks out of the


179

assignment, the job must be meticulously invoiced, served, appealed, re-billed, and frequently subjected

to the costs and delays of IBR. Sometimes interpreters go for years without seeing a single dollar of pay

for a simple job they covered. Court interpreters get their check at the end of the month.








The cost of living, interpreter availability and travel distances differ greatly depending on the

location in California. Please refer to the Berkeley Study Group recommendations and their frequent

use of the term ‘fair market value’. A huge exodus of certified professionals from the Workers

Compensation arena is feared, which will affect injured workers detrimentally. We understand and agree




In conclusion, I urge that a geographical modifier for high-cost areas to be added to the base

amounts that have been proposed. An extra billable amount based on averages of current reasonable

fees. This will still provide a ceilingfor fees while at the same time will sustain interpreter availability in

such areas, and will avoid a guaranteed negative impact on limited English proficient injured workers of

such areas.

Other remarks:

Mileage and travel time allowances contained in the existing section 9795.3 (b)(3)(i) are absent.





____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Olimpia Black April 13, 2018


180

Regarding §9931: I see numerous problems with the whole section of defining and selecting an

interpreter. In my opinion a certification (court, administrative, medical, etc.) is a matter of passing a test

to validate the knowledge necessary to perform the role of an interpreter. No everyone who is bilingual ,

has the aptitude to be an interpreter. Unlike the newly National certified interpreters, the State

Certified medical interpreters had to go through rigorous training and testing in order to obtain this

certification. The State certified medical interpreters obtained extensive training in legal setting not

just for medical, but also for depositions and board appearances and other legal settings. The

administrative testing was discontinued many years ago and thus interpreters with this certification are

less available because of this either beca the lack of certification testing and also because of some on

these interpreters are retiring. If you are going to allow medical interpreters to perform services at legal

(other than superior court) this should be limited to the STATE CERTIFIED INTERPRETERS.

9767.3 Requirements for a MPN

Free lance interpreters should be allowed to apply to become a provider. Currently the access to this has

been monopolized by current giant LSP who do not even operate in California. Mis of these providers are

in other states. I feel it is discriminatory to not allow independent interpreters to join an MPN

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Tony Barriere Interpreting Service Inc. April 13, 2018

Regarding the Proposed Interpreter Fee Schedule I believe that if the regulations go thru the way they are

it’s going to drive certified competent interpreters out of the work comp system at the expense of the

injured worker. Interpreter fees have not been increased since 1997, but yet this proposed fee schedule is

reducing the fees instead of increasing them. According to the BRG report that was done at the request of

the D.I.R in 2016 the report recommends higher rates for Spanish and even higher rates for other than

Spanish languages. This proposed fee schedule is the opposite of the BRG report recommendations.

Rates for other than Spanish language should not be billed at the same rate as Spanish. A Korean or a

Japanese Interpreter might be to only get 2-3 jobs a week, hence warranting a higher rate.

Deposition Readings and C&R’s should be billed at ½ day full day rate. There is no way that a certified

interpreter is going to go do a deposition reading for $57.00 and have to split the fee with an agency let

alone other than Spanish Interpreters. Treatment appointments should be billed with a 2 hour minimum

unless the interpreter is doing more than one appointment, during the same two hour period. As far as the

use of provisionally certified interpreters, I think that a monolingual individual doesn’t have the sufficient

knowledge to determine whether an interpreter is qualify to interpret at a particular setting there should

be a higher standard. Also I don’t think that by contacting 3 agencies to try to find a certified interpreter

is enough. I think that a minimum of 10 agencies should be contacted before using a non-certified

interpreter. Also if insurance companies are going to have MPN’s they should open them to every


181

interpreter not just to One Call or Procare and those are big box agencies from Florida because that

would create a monopoly. I don’t think there is a need to use provisionally certified interpreters in the

Spanish Language, there is a need for provisionally certified interpreters in many of the other languages,

and the new rules are trying to create a loophole for insurance companies to use non-certified interpreters

in every language, putting at risk the applicant’s case.

Interpreters and interpreting agencies are going to be forced to reveal proprietary information about the

number of assignments done in a particular day and the amount bill per appointment. If this is going to be

the case then every defense attorney should be required to do the same since they also do multiple billing,

otherwise this could be considered discrimination against a particular group, ultimately the affected party

will be the injured worker, because their right to have a competent certified interpreter will be denied by

these rules and regulations.

I urge you to reconsider the propose fee schedule and make it more along the lines of the BRG report and

recommendations because the only party benefiting from these regulations are the INS CO’S at the

expense of injured workers.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Esteban Herrera April 13, 2018

Tony Barriere Interpreting Service Inc.

The proposed “Fee Schedule” is a complete ludicrous disaster in its entirety! This will only benefit the

Insurance companies and the Defense Attorneys not the injured worker. An injured worker who does not

speak or understand English deserves to have the assistance of a Professional Certified Interpreter! Such

“Fee schedule” will devastate the injured worker rendering their case as something insignificant, because

they will not be provided with the necessary professional assistance. Certified interpreters will most

likely be an extinct category due to the fact that just about anyone who “thinks” they can speak the

language required, will be the ones providing the services. With that same logic we can say that the

secretaries of the Attorneys can provide the legal representation because they have some knowledge on

the case …I don’t think so! Let’s not forget about how insanely discriminatory this proposal truly is!

Depriving an individual to understand how his/her case is developing is absolutely disgusting and VILE!

This is just another grotesque way of having Insurance companies and their Attorneys pocket even more

money. I will continue to reiterate just how one sided this proposal is and how much harm it will

eventually cause upon the Workers Compensation field. I call out the Applicant Attorneys who are

representing the Injured Workers and the Certified Interpreters providing their services, to fight and

prevent this “Fee Schedule” for the sake of the injured employee!

____________________________________________________________________________________


182

Elizabeth Herrera April 13, 2018

Tony Barriere Interpreting Service Inc.

As someone who has been an interpreter for a number of years, these new changes to the Fee Schedule

will be a disservice to the Injured Workers.

The only person that will suffer the most with these changes are the Injured Workers, because without a

Certified Interpreter, they will be left to try and figure things out on their own. Who are we to deny

anyone the assistance they may need in a language that is comprehensible to them? Unfortunately, if

these changes come about, many of us who are Certified will have no choice but to walk away from the

field in order to get a reasonable compensation.

With the rate at which Cost of Living is on the rise, there is no reason for any of us to stay if we are not

able schedule appointments/hearings because of attorneys “reaching out” to only three (3) interpreters

and resorting to hiring a Non-Certified. How will we ever really know if they reached out to anyone to

begin with? Documentation? If so, who will be checking in on this? There seems to be no checks and

balances for such a practice to be set in place when the entire Fee Schedule revolves around cutting costs.

There have been many times when I have received calls asking if I know of any Certified Interpreter in

an “Exotic Language” (i.e. any language that is not Spanish) and I have on occasion, been able to assist

with finding someone. All interpreters work hard to become Certified and the ones that speak an Exotic

Language are even harder to find because there are so few of them. Believing that they deserve the same

compensation as any other interpreter is ludicrous. There isn’t one interpreter that I know that is non-

Spanish speaking that will take a case/appointment for the proposed fee and I would never expect them to

do so either. We’re basically telling them that their hard work to become certified was for nothing.

Whether we have our Certification or not, we will all be compensated the same? I don’t think so, but this

is what the changes will mean. All of the Non-Certified Interpreters will be drowning in jobs that were

meant for all of us who have passed our exam, met all the requirements and have been doing these for

years (in some cases, decades). We will be telling the Injured Workers that their case means nothing to us

and that any Joe Schmoe off the street will do for their interpreter and if they get someone who is not

familiar with Workers Compensation, then tough luck because the Insurance Company wants to save a

buck.

Not only will the quality of interpreting be at an all-time low, but now we will be required to do the job

of the adjusters and their assistants as well. The way that the “new billing” is outlined is completely

ridiculous. We have to provide all of that information for the Insurance Company so they can turn

around and object to every single itemized invoice sent to them? Nope, sorry. If Attorney’s and any other

provider can bill for multiples then so should we. The proposed Fee Schedule is completely in favor of

the Insurance Company’s and their Attorney’s. As it is now, we have to keep fighting with the Insurance


183

Companies’ to get an invoice paid because they want everything done for free and when reaching out the

Audit Unit, we get turned away. If they are so inclined to this Fee Schedule, then they should be paying

us in a timely fashion. Some of us go months, even years, without seeing a dime on jobs that we have

covered all because the Adjusters toss out our invoice and ignore any and all correspondence we send

out.

As for the section that requires all Certified Interpreters to submit their Itemized Invoice with copy of

Certification, this will not happen. I will not be sending anyone a copy of my Certification because of

fraud that may occur. I will gladly place my Cert number on the invoice, but I will not be providing a

copy. I don’t see any of us doing that and this is just another reason as to why the Non-Certified

Interpreters will benefit from this.

I hope that more Certified Interpreters, like myself, will comment and make sure that we are heard. Not

only are we voicing the injustice with our fee’s, but we are the only voice the Injured Workers have.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Alcira Salguero April 13, 2018

Medical (NBCMI) and Legal Interpreter (English/Spanish)

I have been in practice as an interpreter only for ten years. During the past ten years, there has not been

one single moment where I could say, I have learned everything and I do not need any further training…

never have I encountered that moment!! This profession like many others require CEUs to maintain our

certification. As independent contractors, we must rely on our work to support our professional

development. It is through constant hard work, expert knowledge and skills, and a great desire to serve

our LEP communities, that all of us who are thoroughly trained and certified interpreters contribute,

support, and help sustain the economy of our country. As contributors to the economy of our country,

we need to be treated with fairness and respect in our profession.

I read carefully, the many intelligent comments, notes and remarks from talented, capable and

experienced colleagues, as well as esquires and other professionals who are very knowledgeable of our

industry. I stand firm in support of the unfathomable concerns and disparities expressed by every single

one of them and our CWCIA.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Anabella Tidona April 13, 2018


184

My name is Anabella Tidona and I’m a Spanish Court Interpreter Certified by the State and Federal

Courts.

Regarding the new proposed fee schedule:




standard practice in several areas of California. In the private sector, most Court Certified Interpreters in

Southern California consider a half day to be 3 hours and a full day 6 hours.




____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Anna Kunkin, CMI-Spanish April 13, 2018

I am a Spanish- English interpreter working as am independent contractor in the Los Angeles area. I

became in interpreter with the desire to help people communicate with their medical providers. I also

need to make a living and in the current environment I am barely scraping by.

Every day I watch my email in the hope of filling my days with work; but due to the fact that it is

impossible to know exactly how long a medical appointment will last, and the long distances in between

one job an another in Los Angeles, I am usually only able to book one job per day.

With the new schedule, the agencies, after taking their percentage, won't be able to pay me enough to

cover the cost of my gas and wear and tear on my car let alone enough for me to pay my rent and eat.

This is hardly the myth of the interpreter earning a windfall. In fact, if the new proposed fee schedule

goes into effect I and many trained certified interpreters will be searching for a new profession. How does

this serve the non English speaking population in California?

I chose this profession because I wanted to make a difference. I invested in education and certification

exams and have been working in the field long enough to know that there is a real need for my services.

If the fee schedule goes through as it stands many people will be deprived of the services of many trained

professionals and left at the mercy of untrained and unqualified people who will work for lower wages

and will not provide the quality services that are needed.


185

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Artura Bobea April 13, 2018

Our Konnection

The new regulations that are being tried to pass need the point of view and input of professional

interpreters. This is for the benefit of patients, clients and every party.

We understand that there needs to be formality and an entity that represents the language professionals of

the industry. We are willing to organize in such a way so that we may bring more clarity and order to

subjects as important as this one.

These measures do not reflect a positive outcome for anyone, as it will bring only more confusion,

disappointment and lack of professionalism in delicate scenarios.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Markhabo El Nasser April 13, 2018

Language Services Manager

AccessOnTime Lanaguage Services

As an LSP active in WC market in California, we carefully reviewed the proposal and would like to

address the following topics for further consideration and/or clarification.

Interpreter selection and arrangement process: There seems to be no viable reason for assigning

different parties to be responsible for selection and arrangement of interpreter services depending upon

scenarios. The proposal identifies three different responsible parties depending on the setting,

consequently creating:

o logistical nightmares which may result in an increase in multiple interpreters to be present for the

service

o an environment where interpreter impartiality may be effected depending upon who is seeking the

service (a part from the payer)


186

o a process not sustainable due to its complexity with regard to MPN (the providers within MPN

are constantly changing)

The proposal outlines standards not only for who gets to choose the interpreter but also for the amount

and methods of contact to be made to certified interpreters, the distance between providers and users of

the service, extensive documentation and proof of the steps taken along with complicated billing

instructions. This is a significant and rather unrealistic step towards micro-managing the already

complex logistics that are in place today. We recommend enforcing the use of certified interpreters with

less complex mandates.

Another concerning part of the code is the timeline allotted for arrangement of services while complying

with all aforementioned standards and notice to the injured worker per mandate. Two business days is

simply not an adequate timeframe and we firmly oppose it.

Improper incentive: The code rightfully recognizes the possibility of double booking the interpreter

services as it gives authority to medical personnel and hearing officers to select the interpreter. The

proposed regulations however expand the employer responsible to pay both interpreters for total time of

appointment, which inadvertently will nurture an environment where interpreters will prefer to be

stationed at one selected medical or legal facility. This practice already exists in the market and the

provision will deepen the conflict of interest further and create unnecessary burden for the employer.

Fee structure: Objectivity of the fee structure is based entirely on Federal Court Hearings; however,

this is a system where interpreters remain largely onsite in one location, and they are only billing and

collecting from one payer source. The majority of workers compensation appointments require the

interpreter to travel to various settings and there can be significant distance, down time and ancillary

expense (toll and parking fees) going between appointments. In addition, interpreters may potentially be

billing hundreds of payer sources and with far more documentation required to be collected than in the

Court system. Therefore, we object to the wholesale removal of travel time, mileage reimbursement

and/or parking expenses.

In addition to the above, we believe that in order to be considered objective, the fee structure should be

compared to market rates of other mobile, independently contracted professional services. We are in

agreement with the comments made by CWCIA in response to the draft of May 16, 2015 and believe

that study commissioned by DWC and completed by Berkley Research should be reviewed and updated

to reflect today’s market numbers.

Compensation for interpretation time vs. cost of doing business: The fees only take into

consideration the actual time spent interpreting; however, many times interpreters and LSPs are asked to

render additional services, such as to confirm with the client, which at times requires many calls to

verify availability and to keep appointments from being delayed or canceled. If the interpreter cannot

set their market rate to cover their cost of doing business, then the fee schedule should contain allowance

for such factors (one of the reasons the minimum service fees should remain as 2 hours vs. 1 hour).


187

Last and not least, the proposal needs to better define the role of LSPs in this complicated system of

interpreting service provider (ISP) standards and adequately account for the fees they incur in addition

to the actual interpretation. For example,

o Who is responsible for the insurance coverage of Errors & Omissions Insurance (E&O)? Also

referred to as Professional Liability Insurance, this is a focused insurance that covers lawsuits from the

professional work that you do. Another name is Malpractice Insurance, an insurance that most doctors

are required to carry. Any professional service provider should carry E&O insurance to pay for lawsuits

alleging that they: provided negligent professional services; failed to meet contractual obligations; failed

to uphold a certain standard of care; made errors or oversights. You do not have to be at fault for these

claims to cost a fortune in legal fees. A disgruntled client could simply be unhappy with the results of

your work and decide to sue you to make up for their losses. Non-intentional mistakes or errors are not

unheard of. They do occur and the Payer Clients that hire you are looking to be insulated from these

types of situations should it occur. LSPs and Agencies normally have such coverage and in many cases,

they are policies providing between $5 million to $20 million in coverage. We understand that private

policies with 1 million per incident/2 million aggregate may be available at reasonable rates but what

happens when the liability exceeds the coverage amount?

___________________________________________________________________________________

David Lamonica, Esq. April 13, 2018

As an attorney representing injured workers in Southern California, I have 25 years of experience

representing foreign speaking injured workers. I have reviewed the proposed language of Title 8,

California Code of Regulations (Interpreter sections), and I have multiple objections to said language.

As a practicing attorney representing injured workers, I regularly rely on the services of a certified

interpreter for hearings, depositions, record reviews, client communications, etc. 80% of my clients

speak Spanish as their primary language.

After review of the proposed legislation, I believe that several provisions of the proposed legislation are

troubling and require revision and / or elimination.

Initially, after reading the proposed legislation, I am deeply troubled to lean that it is the intent of the

drafters to allow the use of “qualified or non-certified interpreters” at hearings, depositions or medical

appointments. As I see it, this provision presents attorneys and hearing officers with a possible conflict

with State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct (Ethics). Additionally, the proposed legislation allowing

the use of non-certified interpreters at hearings, depositions and medical appointments would create an

additional stream of litigation whenever an attorney or doctor utilizes a non-certified interpreter. This is

especially true whenever a foreign speaking injured worker is dissatisfied with the outcome of a

particular medical opinion, order or award issued by the WCAB, etc.


188

Several sections require immediate attention:

9930 (c) (3)(k) – Provisionally certified interpreter for hearings and depositions.

This section allows for the use of a provisionally certified interpreter for WCAB hearings and

depositions. Of course, certain conditions must be met before a non-certified interpreter may be utilized

at a hearing or deposition.

In situations where an attorney needs to speak with his / her foreign speaking client, such as:

1- To engage in settlement discussions,

2- Document reviews

3- Deposition prepositions

4- Review of deposition transcripts:

the California State Bar Rules of Professional Responsibility (Ethics) apply. Communications between

an attorney and his / her client are protected by the attorney client privilege. As such, an attorney is

required to ensure that his discussions with his / her foreign speaking client are private and translated by

a “competent” interpreter.

Additionally, the California State Bar Rules of Professional Responsibility (Ethics) apply to hearing

officers licensed by the State of California. Therefore, at hearings, the California State Bar Rules of

Professional Responsibility require a hearing officer to verify the competence of an interpreter whenever

the hearing officer uses the interpreter to communicate with a foreign speaking individual. This ethical

duty continues to apply to both attorneys and hearing officers regardless of whether Title 8 regulations

allow for use of a qualified or provisionally certified interpreter at hearings, depositions, etc.

This legislation ignores the above mentioned ethical concerns, as the legislation simply states that a

hearing officer may assign a non – certified interpreter at hearings when certain conditions are satisfied.

This legislation does not clearly state what conditions would warrant the use of a non – certified

interpreter. It also fails to provide any guidance as to how an attorney or hearing officer may “test” the

competence of the non-certified interpreter.

I believe that by allowing non-certified interpreters to perform the above mentioned services would cause

an attorney and / or hearing officer to face a direct conflict with the California Rules of Professional

Responsibility whenever an attorney / hearing officer is faced with having to utilize a non-certified

interpreter. There is simply no realistic, independent way for an attorney / hearing officer to test the

competency of the non-certified interpreter. The attorney / hearing officer is usually not able to speak the

foreign language, so how would he / she test the interpreter’s competence? Based on the fact that there

is no way for an attorney or hearing officer to verify the competence of an interpreter, I do not believe

either professional may rely on non-certified interpreters for hearings or depositions.

Title 8, Section 9936 - Computation of Fees


189

9936(c)(1) – states that fees for interpreter services for the second and each successive interpretation

during the same time period as the initial interpretation shall be billed at 75% of billing rate of the first

interpretation, as set forth in section 9937.

After reviewing the above mentioned language, I foresee that this provision will cause delays in setting

hearings at the WCAB. Attorneys and interpreters will be required to change the manner in which they

schedule cases for hearings (including expedited hearings) mostly because certified interpreters will

likely limit their interpretations to 3 – 4 per half day at the WCAB. This is true because it’s not realistic

to expect a certified interpreter to provide multiple interpretations per day when their fees are reduced by

25% for each interpretation. Also, certified interpreters are assigned their appearances via agencies that

collect 30% – 50% of the interpreter fee. This will likely limit the availability of certified interpreters for

hearings, which will cause delays in selecting hearing dates.

At present, when an attorney sets a case for a hearing at the WCAB, he/she selects a date without

considering an interpreter’s availability. If this proposal becomes law, I foresee that the parties will now

need to spend additional time in trying to locate available certified interpreters before we can set

hearings. This will certainly create delays in setting hearings, especially since I anticipate that certified

interpreters will be limiting their interpretations to 3 – 4 per half day at the WCAB.

As an alternative to proposing a “pro-rata” fee schedule which will not reduce costs and will create

additional administrative duties, court calendar delays and additional stress for foreign speaking injured

workers, the proposed legislation should provide for a fee schedule that is designed to work for

interpreting agencies, certified interpreters and employers. Unfortunately, this proposed legislation is

not designed to address this goal. Additionally, if costs are a concern, then a fair and balanced fee

schedule would seem the best method to deal with cost concerns, especially since this proposed pro-rata

fee schedule will not reduce costs to employers.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Carol Anne Gordon, MSW April 13, 2018

As an interpreter (of Spanish & Portuguese), I was shocked to see the "standards" that the state of

California is considering for its certified interpreters.

These suggestions are not helpful. Interpreters are imperative for insuring that customers, patients,

victims, and, yes, even criminals, receive equal, accurate representation under the law.


190

This shoddy attempt to stop paying educated, trained experts in their field of expertise shows a lack of

compassion for those for whom English is not the first and only language....and I believe that's illegal in

all fifty states, not just in California.

The idea that people who are not interpreters could decide the qualifications and pay rates for interpreters

is....well, it's as ludicrous as having all men decide about federal guidelines for women's health

issues. Oh, wait a minute - that's what the Feds currently do!

And California doesn't want to be like them, does it?

Reconsider. What you might save in a few interpreters' fees you're going to lose in millions of dollars

when the lawsuits some against you for this blatant discrimination.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Bosco Boksh April 13, 2018

I am a State Certified Court Interpreter, and I want to respectfully but strongly express my opposition to

the proposed interpreter fee schedule in regards to the following points:

- The interpreters and agencies should be given the possibility to negotiate all terms and conditions, not

just the payment. For example, the half day/full day. For freelance interpreters who travel to the locations

to perform their jobs, because of the travel time, traffic, unforeseen situations, it is unreasonable to set the

half day at 3.5 hours and the full day at 8 hours. It should be 3 hours for the half day. We don't set our

own schedules and are subject to any changes made by either deponents or attorneys, which may cause a

burden on our being able to have two assignments in a given day, which most likely is the case with most

interpreters. We need the time to travel from one location to another; we need to be able to accept two

assignments for our livelihood. We need, like any other worker in any industry, the time to eat, to have a

break. That is elementary for any worker.

- "Provisionally" certified interpreters is absurd because how can a monolingual person be able to

determine if someone is qualified to interpret? I am a Spanish/English interpreter, and I don't speak

Russian. How can I determine that a person is qualified to interpret for a Russian- speaking injured

worker? I can't.That notion is absurd, to say the least.

-For depositions and administrative hearings, only certified interpreters listed on the State Personnel

Board and on the California Courts websites should be used.


191

- Selecting a "bilingual" staff member to interpret is detrimental to our profession and also to the injured

worker's right to meaningful, competent and professional interpreting services. A staff member is not

able to adhere to the same ethical and impartial standards certified interpreters are. Injured workers

deserve better services than that.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Ms. Tram Bui, CMI-Vietnamese April 13, 2018

I am a Certified Medical Interpreter in Vietnamese. I strongly disagree with the newly propose workers

compensation fee for Interpreters. It is unfair and drives the quality as well as the level of professionalism

down for everyone.

Please do not pass this proposal.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Garrett M. Bradford April 13, 2018

Interpreter & Translator

Certification of interpreters is the profession's best way to ensure that limited English proficient persons

are given equal access to services through accurate interpretation. Such interpreters adhere to a strict code

of ethics when performing their duties. The use of provisionally certified interpreters when certified

interpreters are available is comparable to allowing provisional certification for doctors to treat patients

on an emergency basis, or lawyers being allowed to practice law before passing their bar exam for

expediency’s sake.

The proposed rate of a one-hour minimum is unrealistic and not standard in the profession. Most medical

providers, government agencies, language service providers, and other users of interpreting services

require a two-hour window from interpreters. As such, interpreters should be paid a two-hour minimum.

Furthermore, interpreters should be reimbursed for all parking fees, tolls, mileage, and travel time. Wear

and tear on vehicles is a massive expense, and interpreters spend a lot of time behind the wheel in order

to get to all matter of different locations for assignments.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_


192

Olivia D. Athens April 13, 2018

CA Administrative Hearing Certification #100814






9931.


(c)(3):


















MPN.





193

(e) A full day, even in Superior Court, does not consist of 8 hours. It is actually 7. There are 2 sessions of

3.5 hours each, allowing breaks and 1 hour lunch.

(f) Half-Day means:









workers.















interpreter”.




194




(1) the elimination of the word ‘qualified’ and replaced with ‘CERTIFIED’ is urged. Again, the existing

language lets the door open for the systematic use of substandard uncertified individuals, despite all the

requirements contained in Section 9932. These practices have deleterious effects to the LEP injured

worker.













will be an absolute and unmitigated administrative nightmare for judges, attorneys, interpreters, language

service providers and yes, even defense attorneys.









195









evaluations. Deposition reviews should not be taken lightly and should and must be treated with the same

seriousness and commitment to professional language as a deposition. Not doing so is putting the injured

worker at a disadvantage from making necessary corrections to his/her testimony. Unless these are paid

accordingly, no competent, certified interpreter will be willing to accept these assignments.






Overburdening the Judges and doctors with administrative requirements that are practically impossible to

comply with.

It does not allow for the difference between an individual working/billing the employer directly, and an

interpreter working through an agency (LSP).









cover a case for another LSP? Why should the first LSP take a pay cut? Should the interpreter then refuse

to help in that additional case, delaying the process needlessly?

What if an LSP has concurrent events at the same time at various WCABs. Does the LSP have to prorate

their invoices? Must they submit sworn statements?


196






Free-lance interpreters are independent contractors, not employees! A fee regulation is permissible under

Labor Code rules requiring a uniform pay, however, where does the State, Insurance Carrier or Employer

have the authority to control their work schedules? For instance, even if MPN doctors have their set fees,

the State does not dictate how many patients a day they can see nor are they asked to prorate their fees if

they happen to get an last minute extra patient in the same time frame.













Here are some:

Superior Court employee interpreters have the guarantee of payment. We don’t. We are subject to

frequent and unfounded objections and delays in payment. The Workers Comp interpreting assignment

doesn’t end when the event ends. Thereafter this assignment must be laboriously invoiced, served,

appealed, frequently subjected to the costs and delays of IBR. Sometimes interpreters go for years

without seeing a single dollar of pay for a simple WCAB appearance they did. Court interpreters get their

check at the end of the month.


197





year. Free-lance interpreters have absolutely NO BENEFITS. They must buy their own health














many area.

Other remarks:






____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Silvia Uribe, Victim-Wellness Program April 13, 2018

District Attorney’s Office

I would like to direct your attention to some aspects of this proposed fee schedule, and regulations:


198

“Provisionally Certified Interpreters”

To me, the most important, and in fact crucial issue, is the proposal to allow “provisionally certified

interpreters” in lieu of actual certified interpreters for medical and medical/legal appointments, as well as

the vague definition of what a qualified interpreter means in this context.

I emphatically oppose the use of “provisionally certified interpreters”. This practice would be comparable

to allowing “provisionally certified doctors” to treat patients on an emergency basis, or lawyers being

allowed to practice before passing their bar exam for expediency’s sake.

How would a person such a judge, attorney, doctor (or much less an adjuster) who doesn't speak the

foreign language, in the first place, ? There are State and National associations that exist for that purpose.

As intellectual workers, certified interpreters go through years of rigorous training and take a test which

is very difficult to pass. Knowing two languages does not qualify someone to be an interpreter.

Interpreting requires a unique skill set. This explains why many certified court, and medical interpreters

hold four-year college degrees, many of them master’s or doctorate degrees. The acceptance of

“provisionally certified interpreters” not only will end the quality standards and completely undermine

the interpreting profession but, most importantly, this measure will be a disservice to the injured worker

who completely depends on competent interpreters to convey his concerns, testimony, symptoms and so

much more.

Length and terms of medical treatment appointments:

a) The proposed rate is a one-hour minimum at $86.50. This is unrealistic. Most doctors, insurance

companies and interpreting agencies require us to reserve a two-hour window. We must therefore insist

on the current rule of a two-hour minimum to remain. b) There is no language about the percentage of

the interpreter’s fee that interpreting agencies charge as a commission. As it stands today, they take 30-

50%. No one is even mentioning the disproportionate ratio of the broker's commission versus the

interpreter's fee. We the interpreters are the service providers, not the agencies or brokers. c) There is a

proposed lower rate for subsequent assignments in the same location, leaving one to assume that is the

actual rate being offered ($64.31/hour); Does the medical provider also provide a discount if he sees

more than one patient in the same time slot? We see no rational argument for a reduction in rates for this

scenario. d) There is no allowance for parking fees or for mileage, which, especially for interpreters who

live and work in rural areas, in all fairness must be taken into consideration. One of our biggest expenses

is the wear and tear on our vehicles, and we spend a lot of unpaid time behind the wheel in order to get to

all the different locations.

There are many other terms and conditions that need to be negotiated. One, for example, is that of the

DWC considering 3.5 hours as half day and 8 hours as full day. This is not workable in Southern

California because distances for independent court certified interpreters traveling from one hearing to


199

another can be great. Hearings are usually from 10 AM to 1 PM and from 2 PM to 5 PM. So if a hearing

prolongs to 1:30, for example, there is not enough time to travel to the next hearing. Thus, 3.5 hours

should be considered a full day. That is the custom in many areas in California.

Based on the reasons stated above, I oppose the proposed fee schedule for interpreting services. I also

would like to mention that this proposal clearly shows the lack of input allowed from Certified

Interpreters, and interpreters’ associations, in the design of this document.

Failure to revise these issues will affect the earning capacity of Certified Interpreters like myself,

therefore decreasing the availability of professionals, giving way to the use of Non-Certified

Interpreters, This not only affects the End User (Claimants), but the market in general, and it is a

dishonest use of state funds, just for the sake of serving the Insurance companies’ interests.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Luis Perez JD April 13, 2018

Workers’ Compensation Hearing Rep

Mashney Law Offices

Our majority of our clients are Arabic speakers, the implementation of schedule fee in workers’ comp is

going to create a major problem to obtain an interpreter who can translate from any other foreign

language to English and it will be affecting the communication between Attorneys, WCAB Judges, and

clients.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Paul Boutin April 13, 2018

Please consider opposing the following specific sections:


Reason:




200













doesn’t charge less the more customers they service in any given hour.


§9937. Billing Fees and Codes: Add billing code for review and signing of settlement documents at

informal settings

Reason:




Reason:

Because these “one size fits all” fees do not work for all languages in all geographical locations.



BRG study included a compilation of fees charged by interpreters throughout the state. Because these

fees won’t assure an adequate supply of interpreters for languages of lesser diffusion (LLD). Many of

these interpreters receive a small volume of assignments per year and the fees must be higher in order to

ensure availability to the injured worker. Additionally these interpreters must travel long distances to







201





Reason:


interpreter providing the services. It is called an Interpreter Verification Form (IVF) Because when an

Interpreter Service Provider (ISP) is the one billing, the free-lance interpreter who performed the services

cannot sign each bill.



Reason:




Reason:




Division 1. Department of Industrial Relations Chapter 4.5 Division of Workers’ Compensation,

Subchapter 1. Administrative Director Article 3.5 Medical Provider Network

9767.3 Requirements for a MPN:

Please add language allowing for Interpreter Service Providers (ISPs) and interpreters to be notified when


REASON:





202


Division 1. Department of Industrial Relations Chapter 4.5 Division of Workers’ Compensation

Subchapter 1 Administrative Director-Administrative Rules Article 11 Fees and Requirements for

Interpreter Services

Under §9930. Definitions Strike “medical examinations” from the definition of 9930 (a) “Certified

interpreter for hearings and depositions”

Reason:





CHANGE TO 7 HOURS

Reason:






REQUIRED



(2) When appearing at a deposition, all or any part of 3.5 hours; CHANGE TO 3 HOURS and ADHERE

TO A HALF DAY MORNING AND AFTERNOON DEFINITION FOR DEPOSITIONS, i.e: 8:30 am

to 12:00 pm AND 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm

Reason:




often take place in differing locations. Please refer to the En Banc Decision of Guitron vs. Santa Fe

Extruders/ SCIF and the Mercedes Osuna BAK 141379 case


203



Reason:


legwork to provide interpreters for the countless events that need scheduling daily.

ISPs perform a vital function in coordinating interpreting services across the state and is mentioned

throughout the proposed document, but not defined. The fees contained in the proposal will not be the



TO:Medical-Legal Evaluations & Consultations

Reason:

Because medical-legal consultations also exist.



proposal contradicts this requirement in section 9931 (4) (f): (f) If the injured worker is responsible for

selecting the interpreter, the injured worker or his/her agent, if represented, shall promptly select the

interpreter and notify the employer within two business days of the selection, so the employer has

sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter

Reason:



sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE, it is contradictory.



Reason:


204









Reason:





interpreter.





Reason:










business day.

Reason:


205





services.








Reason:



etc.









Legal Evaluations:



Reason:


whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter? This is simply absurd. The interpreter






206




Legal Evaluations:









noncertified interpreters and the agencies who send them posing as certified interpreters.

Because the medical provider has access to the internet and can verify the names of the certified

interpreters on the websites listings. Because the medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the

employer objecting to pay an interpreter’s bill Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already

requires this information Because this places an undue burden on medical providers


Legal Evaluations:


during the same one-hour medical treatment appointment time period or the same two-hour medicallegal


period ; The medical provider shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report or medical file.

Reason:






____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Eugenia Richichi April 13, 2018


207

Administrative Certified Interpreter

Spanish

My name is Eugenia Richichi. I am an Administrative Interpreter certified by the State of California. I

have been an interpreter for approximately 25 years, and I have really enjoyed serving in this profession.

In referenced to the proposed fees for Interpreter Services, I am requesting that you address the following

points:

1. §9936. Computation of Fees (d) needs to specifically give interpreters and agencies the possibility of

negotiating all terms and conditions, not just payment, such as the duration of half day/full day, which the

DWC proposal sets at 3.5 hours and up to 8 hours respectively, and which differs from standard practice

in several areas of California.

2. §9930(a) (Definitions, “Certified interpreter for hearings and depositions”) needs to specify

that only interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website or on the California Courts website are

allowed to interpret at administrative hearings and depositions.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Stephanie Cooper April 13, 2018

Visiting Professor

French Translation and Interpretation

Translation and Localization Management

Graduate School of Translation, Interpretation and Language Education

Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS)

Formerly the Monterey Institute of International Studies

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the proposed changes in the interpreter fee schedule and

regulations for 2018. I wish to respond as to what I believe are the most problematic portions of the

proposed changes.

The most important issue is the proposal to allow provisionally certified interpreters in lieu of actual

certified interpreters for medical and medical/legal appointments, as well as the vague definition of

what a qualified interpreter means in this context. I object to the use of any person who is not a

bonafide certified interpreter to provide language services in any workers compensation setting.

If said persons wish to provide language services, they must enroll in training courses, undergo

mandatory testing and obtain their certification in a timeframe not to exceed six months. If they can

demonstrate that they are in the process of pursuing certification, and the search for a certified interpreter


208

has been exhausted and documented, only then an exception could be made. It should be noted, that

medical-legal evaluations are scheduled well in advance, usually 60 days prior to the appointment. There

is absolutely no reason a certified interpreter cannot be scheduled within that timeframe. We can also

point out that treatment visits are also scheduled days or usually weeks in advance, hence there is no

valid excuse for sending a provisionally certified person to do the job of a certified interpreter. The

brokers or agencies very often choose to wait until the day before to assign the appointments. These are

the facts and they cannot be ignored.

For our profession, certification of interpreters has become the industry's best way to ensure the safety of

patients with accurate interpretation as well as adherence to a strict code of ethics that certified

interpreters are subject to. The use of provisionally certified interpreters is comparable to allowing

provisional certification for doctors to treat patients on an emergency basis, or lawyers being allowed to

practice before passing their bar exam for expediency’s sake.

There are countless instances where patients do not receive the benefit of accurate and competent

language services in worker’s compensation medical/legal appointments, which can at the very least

cause incorrect reporting of injuries and symptoms in new claims with subsequent refusal to treat

injured body parts or poor outcomes from treatment, and in the extreme could lead to medical

malpractice or even cause death. A good way to avoid litigation for LEP (Limited English Proficiency)

claimants in the system is to start with the highest quality language services available.

Regarding the proposed fee of $86.50, there are several points that need to be addressed:


209

INTERPRETER FEE SCHEDULE FORUM COMMENTS

1. The proposed rate is a one-hour minimum. This is unrealistic. Most doctors, insurance companies and

interpreting agencies require us to reserve a two-hour window. We must therefore insist on the current

rule of a two-hour minimum to remain.

2. There is no language about the percentage of the interpreter’s fee that interpreting agencies charge as

a commission. As it stands today, LSPs usually take 50-60% as a commission. No one is even

mentioning the disproportionate ratio of the broker's commission versus the interpreter's fee. We the

interpreters are the service providers, not the agencies or brokers. 3. There is a proposed lower rate for subsequent assignments in the same location, leaving one to assume

that is the actual rate being offered ($64.31/hour); Does the medical provider also provide a discount if

he sees more than one patient in the same time slot? We see no rational argument for a reduction in rates

for this scenario.

4. There is no allowance for parking fees or for mileage, which, especially for interpreters who live and

work in rural areas, in all fairness must be taken into consideration. One of our biggest expenses is the

wear and tear on our vehicles, and we spend a lot of unpaid time behind the wheel in order to get to all

the different locations.

We assume that the goal is to ensure that LEP claimants are given equal access to quality medical care

through the services of interpreters.

It has become clear that to be an appropriate provider of those services, any individual, in addition to

being demonstrably bilingual, must have medical terminology training, understand cultural differences,

as well as operate by a code of ethics whereby both patients and medical providers are served with the

highest level of skill, professionalism, discretion and respect.

We are your greatest assets in terms of cost containment, fairness and transparency when it comes to

serving the LEP population. Please keep this in mind when you write your final fee schedule and

regulations.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Ryan Triet Le, CoreCHI April 13, 2018


Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters


210

My name is Ryan. I am a Vietnamese interpreter in the Greater Los Angeles Area. Since becoming

certified, I have taken many work-comp cases where the injured workers seek medical evaluation from a

medical practitioners.

I strongly disagree with the proposed changes from the DWC on the following points:

1. The use of provisional interpreter: the proposed changes would suggest the use of provisional

interpreters being acceptable and create a downfall in the services for certified interpreters. This will

create a negative trend in the business and discourage people to become certified.

2. The control of sending whether certified or noncertified interpreters: insurance companies would have

the power to decide whom to send after sending certified interpreters 3 times. Again, this would

discourage the use of a certified interpreters.

3. The minimum charge for medical appointments would be reduced from 2 hours to 1 hours: This would

create logistic and timing issues. The interpreters would not have enough time to travel between

assignments and the quality of services might be affected.

4. Overall, these changes would promote the use of provisional interpreters instead of certified

interpreters. Beside the interpreters are affected by the change, the injured workers - limited English

proficiency are the ones receiving the big blow. Instead of getting the most reliable and qualifying

language services from certified interpreters, they would get the less reliable and qualifying language

service providers, naming the provisional interpreters.

Please consider not to proceed with the changes due to quality of interpreting services but more

importantly the safety and reassurance of the injured workers.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Johnny Engleheart April 13, 2018

This is most crucial that we maintain a two hour minimum in the interpreter profession.

Without that we cannot make enough money in an eight hour and day since most appointments are one or

two hours, so we won’t get paid in between.

This is not just a selfish request. Like anything else you get what you pay for.

One main point of discussion is, it’s a safety issue of quality when you’re dealing in healthcare.


211

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

April Morrell, Representative April 13, 2018

Lorraine Morrell Interpreting

This comment is being submitted on behalf of myself and Lorraine Morell, who is a court certified

Spanish interpreter and works as independent contractor in the workers compensation field. Allow me to

preface the following by stating that the foundational concern is for the civil rights of the injured worker

to have meaningful language access afforded by Title VI. Since they are the reason our profession exists,

it is critical they have access to a qualified interpreter who can accurately translate the complex verbiage

of their cases. Parts of the proposed text would severely undermine that access. Further, I strongly

encourage you to adopt the recommendations and suggestions in the report issued by BRG in

December 2014, as their research is the most comprehensive in this field to date.

Below are concerns and proposed changes to the text agreed upon by colleagues in the workers

compensation field:




• It waters down the requirements to provide limited English proficient (LEP) injured workers

with professional interpreters and meaningful language access. • It opens the state up to civil rights lawsuits like Lau v. Nichols 414 US 563 (1974)







minimums for treatment appointments in offices where medical providers do not service.

Many workers’ compensation cases will lead certified interpreters to decline said appointments,

allowing for “provisionally” certified interpreters as defined in this proposal to benefit the most, to

the detriment of the LEP injured worker. • Allowing monolingual medical providers, hearing officers and adjusters to determine who has sufficient




212



PROPOSED CHANGES TO TEXT








REASON:











depositions”

Reason:




(e) “Full day" means interpreting services performed which exceed

one half-day, up to 8 hours. CHANGE TO 7 HOURS


213

Reason:






REQUIRED






Reason:





Extruders/ SCIF and the Mercedes Osuna BAK 141379 case.



Reason:




document, but not defined.




Reason:



214

Under §9930. Definitions: There is no allowance for MILEAGE AND TRAVEL TIME

Reason:

Because all assignments require that interpreters travel to the site where the services will be performed

and because other providers in the system, including defense attorneys, who must travel are compensated.


Reason:


reimbursed no less than the minimum fee unless notified of a cancellation at least 24 hours prior to the




proposal contradicts this requirement in section 9931 (4) (f): (f) If the injured worker is responsible for

selecting the interpreter, the injured worker or his/her agent, if represented, shall promptly select the

interpreter and notify the employer within two business days of the selection, so the employer has

sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter.

Reason:



sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter. THIS MAKES NO SENSE, as it is

contradictory.



Reason:







215




Reason:

This represents a huge conflict of interest. Because a staff interpreter’s ethical requirement to be

neutral and impartial will be compromised by the nature of the employer/employee relationship. Because

the medical provider will deem any “bilingual” staff member qualified to interpret in order not to miss

seeing a patient for whom the employer has failed to comply with their obligation to send the interpreter.





Reason:










business day.

Reason:





services.


216








Reason:


circumstances including cancellations, add ons, the I&A officers requesting last minute

interpretation, etc. For example, an interpreter might go on the record initially stating they have 2 cases.

After completing the first case, they find that the other case has been cancelled. Now they are only there

for one case. Their billing would not reflect the official record leading to billing disputes that would need

to be resolved at a hearing before the WCAB, not to mention an accusation of perjury. Because this

places an undue burden on the hearing officers and the certified interpreters who are engaged in servicing

the LEP injured worker and those who need to communicate with her. Hearing officers verifying

credentials is one thing. Policing of certified interpreters as set forth by this section is an insult to the

profession.





Reason:


whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter? This is simply absurd. The

interpreter profession has already provided the DIR/DWC with a work-around: on May 20, 2016,

a document titled "Provisionally Certified Interpreter Appeal", signed by 14 interpreting

associations nationwide, was sent to AD Parisotto and Staff Counsel Hersh warning about the

dangers and recommending analternative to this misguided notion. Because this is a very

dangerous proposal that risks trampling on the limited English proficient injured worker’s civil

right to meaningful access to government services as protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964


217










being circulated in medical report distribution. There is enough fraud as it is with unscrupulous non-

certified interpreters and the agencies who send them posing as certified interpreters. Because the

medical provider has access to the internet and can verify the names of the certified interpreters on the

websites listings. Because the medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the employer objecting to

pay an interpreter’s bill Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already requires this information

Because this places an undue burden on medical providers.






period ; The medical provider shall note this information in the medical-legal exam reportor medical file.

Reason:








Reason:


218

Because interpreters should be entitled to some minimum amount in order to ensure that a

particular assignment is worth their while. The two-hour minimum is an industry wide standard. Many

assignments require an interpreter to travel to the site where services are to be rendered. Interpreters

constantly have to turn down time-conflicting assignments. No interpreter will travel over one hour and

60 miles, as in the case in many, many regions of California to be paid for one hour of the sight

translation of a court binding document, as in the case of deposition transcript reviews, at the one hour

minimum rate of $56.00! This is even less than what this proposal allows for a “provisionally” non-

certified interpreter at a medical treatment appointment (see MTI-2) : $57.75 per hour. LEP injured

workers will lose meaningful language access to workers’ compensation services when professional

interpreters leave the field for greater respect, equal pay and improved working conditions in this fast-

growing industry.


services? Doctors can see 5 patients in a day, or 10 or 20, as long as they bill at fee schedule. They can

have a P.A., and treat patients concurrently, and still bill at the fee schedule for each appointment.

Attorneys at the WCAB do not prorate their fees to different clients. Restaurants do not charge less on

busy nights. Jiffy-lube doesn’t charge less the more customers they service in

any given hour. THIS IS DISCRIMINATORY.


informal settings

Reason:


office, to avoid delaying

settlement of a case until a hearing can be set.


THIS ENTIRE SECTION

Reason:



already been presented to the DWC both in writing and in person on several occasions.

The BRG study included a compilation of fees charged by interpreters throughout the state.

Because these fees won’t assure an adequate supply of interpreters for languages of lesser diffusion

(LLD). Many of these interpreters receive a small volume of assignments per year and the fees


219

must be higher in order to ensure availability to the injured worker. Additionally these interpreters

must travel long distances to perform services. Many LLD interpreters have expressed that these

proposed fees would drive them out of workers’ compensation and into other industries with better

compensation. Because the two-hour minimum is an industry wide standard and many assignments

require an interpreter to travel to the site where services are to be rendered and because the free

hand of the market should prevail.






Reason:


interpreter providing the services. It is called an Interpreter Verification Form (IVF) and because when an


cannot sign each declaration.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Claudia Gonzalez April 13, 2018

I have been working in the industry for so many years and survived many reforms.

This one seems to have been written with the intent to discriminate against interpreters yet the same

defense firms to the VERY SAME THING themselves. Do they pro rate? Do doctors offices pro rate if

they are seeing more than one patient at a time? Do body shops pro rate their fees for fixing cars, tires,

etc. if there are more than one car waiting at a time? The answer is NO so why is this discrimination

happening against interpreters. Why complicate the system and possibly cause many civil rights suits

when simply finding a reasonable rate for all service provided for each type of service. No other

provider has to pro rate and now the proposed fee schedule wants us to prorate?

The signing of settlement documents is missing from the billing fees and codes. Without these, we will

no longer be able to accept important documents to be translated in an informal setting like a


220

Compromise & Release. This will now force the attorney firms to calendar the signing of the C&R even

if both the defense firm and the applicant firm have come to an agreement. Without adding these service

in the Fee Schedule, this will inconvenient everyone as it will be impossible to schedule these types of

services.

Reading of deposition should be included with a billing half day fee and code. By reducing this to a one

hour minimum interpreters will now be pro rated to a lesser amount than at a medical treatment

appointment. Nobody will take this type of work.

Treatment needs to be two hour minimum, nobody took into consideration that there is wait

time. Nobody will want to accept this type of work.

Please take into consideration this all and try to include the following:

Computation of Fees – DISCRIMINATION 100% AGAINST INTERPRETERS – and simply will cause

more work for the court and providers to save only a few dollars. Most interpreters have one to three

assignments at the most. Finding an amount in the middle is more cost effective then having different

rates.

Two hour minimum for treatment – not one hour

Half day fee for reading of deposition – not hourly – this should be the same as the deposition or a

hearing.

Add important settlement documents to the fee schedule whether in an informal setting or the court –

examples – C&R reading

Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider some of the many things wrong with this proposal

of fees.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Bannie Chow April 13, 2018

California State Interpreter – Cantonese

Commenter concurs with the comments and suggestions submitted by her fellow interpreters.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_


221

Margarita Bekker, CCHI Chair April 13, 2018

Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters

I was never treated by a "provisional" doctor or nurse. I would never imagine engaging services of a

"provisional" attorney even if such category existed.

Only certified interpreters should provide services. "Provisional Interpreter" is not a

professional. Certification is a means of separating competent interpreters for the larger candidate pool

of less qualified interpreters.

Effective communication between patients and healthcare providers is essential to ensure accurate

diagnosis and treatment, obtain informed consent and prevent medical errors.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Corinne McKay, CT April 13, 2018

ATA-Certified French to English translator

President of the American Translators Association

As President of the American Translators Association, I would like to offer some comments on the

proposed changes to your Interpreter Fee Schedule. As an association of over 10,000 language

professionals whose tagline is "The voice of interpreters and translators," ATA is very concerned about

these proposed changes, and recommends the following adjustments

-Monolingual medical professionals or hearing officers should not be responsible for deciding who is

qualified to interpret. They are professionals in their own areas, not language professionals.

-Pay structure should *promote* the use of certified interpreters--not discourage this-- where and when

they are available. Paying provisional interpreters at a greatly discounted rate incentivizes medical

professionals and hearing officers to use less qualified, non-certified interpreters.

-A minimum charge of one hour is not logistically feasible, and the two hour minimum should be

maintained. The one-hour minimum places undue strain on interpreters, who are often required to arrive

early for appointments, wait for long periods of time, and stay as long as they are needed. A one-hour

minimum places undue strain on interpreters who often work for many clients in many locations in one

day.


222

-Interpreters should not be asked to work multiple appointments at one facility for a discounted rate. This

is not an expectation that should be placed on a professional.

-The "three tries" rule should be eliminated; a certified interpreter should be used in all cases, whenever

possible, regardless of the amount of contacts needed to schedule that person. The "three tries" provision

seems ripe for abuse; if the entity hiring the interpreter prefers to send a less expensive, less qualified,

non-certified interpreter, they can easily accomplish this by calling three interpreters who they know are

always busy, or claiming that they could not get a response from any certified interpreters.

Access to critical services such as workers' compensation hearings is part of the fabric of our nation. The

DWC needs to consider whether it would apply these types of provisions to other professional services. If

the DWC were having difficulty hiring enough physicians to assess injured workers; would medical

students be used instead? If not, the system for finding and compensating interpreters needs to change,

with preference given to California's many certified interpreters whenever possible, and with appropriate

compensation provided for those interpreters' services.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Aliza Grossman, Esq. April 13, 2018

Hinden & Breslavsky, APC

As an attorney who represents injured workers, I am deeply concerned about the proposal as it stands and

the negative impact it will have on my clients and the interpreters I rely upon. I have outlined my

concerns and suggestions below:

1. My clients have a right to a certified interpreter under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(42 U.S.C. 2000D). The proposed regulations violate the civil rights of every one of my non-English

speaking clients.

2. Interpreting is a profession that requires certification. A bi-lingual person is not a qualified

interpreter for legal or medical matters and the State of California has said as much by requiring

certification. Certified interpreters are trained professionals; they adhere to a code of ethics, they know

both languages, and have undergone extensive training to interpret simultaneously and accurately.

a. To this end, I find Section 9931 particularly problematic. First, it authorizes hearing officers,

adjustors, and physicians to “provisionally certify” someone if no certified interpreter can be

found. This defies logic. If a professional needs an interpreter to speak with my client, they, by

definition, are unable to determine whether the interpreter is qualified. That is why we rely on

certification. In every other field (from law to cosmetology) if the state requires certification in

some instances, the state requires certification in all instances. It should be no different here.


223

b. Second, a plain language reading of Section 9930(a) allows a medical interpreter to interpret at

hearings and deposition. Surely, this cannot be the intent of the authors, as medical interpreters

are not trained or qualified to interpret in legal settings.

3. The implications of utilizing a non-certified interpreter can be devastating in the lives of injured

workers. At medical appointments, depositions, trial, reviewing C&R’s or Stips with Requests for

Awards, my clients need a certified interpreter; I cannot risk that any words are being omitted, added,

paraphrased, or outright misinterpreted. My clients’ legal rights and physical safety are at risk. For

example:

a. If an interpreter does not accurately interpret a doctor’s instructions, my client is at risk of

physical harm because he/she has been given inaccurate medical information.

b. If an interpreter at a deposition or medical appointment paraphrases, my client may be denied

benefits because there is no record of them having reported injury to a specific body part, when in

reality, my client did report the body part but a non-certified interpreter did not think it important

to interpret specifically or precisely.

c. If an interpreter does not accurately interpret my client’s testimony at a deposition, and my client

therefore seems to testify “inconsistently” at trial, it is my client who may be impeached, accused

of perjury, or accused of insurance fraud.

d. If an interpreter does not accurately translate my words at a hearing, my client will not understand

his/her legal rights and obligations.

4. As a matter of respect, from one profession to another, I would be remiss not to mention that the fees

listed and requirements imposed in proposed fee schedule are untenable and will drive many

certified interpreters out of this business at the exact time we need them. The fees for deposition

prep, reviewing deposition transcripts, signing C&R’s, and signing Stipulations, need to be higher to

account for the reality of interpreting agencies charging a commission and they need to be up-to-date

with market rates. I would also urge you to reconsider the policy for limiting compensation of work post-

8 hours and consider whether this in fact should be paid at time and a half like other professions.

Furthermore, if a fee schedule is even necessary, it should absolutely include compensation for travel

time and/or mileage and contemplate higher rates for exotic languages.

While trying to streamline the costs of the Workers’ Compensation system is an appropriate goal, cutting

costs cannot come at the expense of my clients’ civil rights. Those injured at work are already in a

vulnerable position. California has designed a system to be liberally construed to issue benefits to

injured workers (see Labor Code 3202). It is a violation of equal protection to allow Injured workers

who don’t speak English to be further prejudiced because of the language barrier.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_


224

Beverly Treumann, CHI, CMI April 13, 2018

Program and Quality Assurance Director

Health Care Interpreter Network

I am writing to object to the newly proposed fees and requirements for interpreter services.

All the parties to workers compensation processes deserve to be assisted by professional interpreters who

are paid fairly for their work.

Professional interpreters have gone through credible processes of language proficiency testing, interpreter

skills training, and interpreter skills testing. They work hard to acquire the knowledge and the ability to

convey information accurately and completely across a language barrier. They have sworn to follow a

code of ethics.

California is a state with a lot of bilinguals and it can be tempting for medical providers and hearing

officers to believe that individuals with unproven language proficiency and unproven skills can step in to

convey what the patient has said, what the provider has said, or what the parties to a dispute have said.

However, it's not difficult to find jokes about meaning that is "lost in translation." The jokes are about

what really happens when amateurs interpret or translate. Don't turn the fees and requirements into a

joke. The proposed changes would make it easier for individuals who hold no recognized expertise in

language assessment to "provisionally qualify" interpreters. The proposed changes to the fee schedule

would make the work less worthwhile for the professionals and would further erode the number of

certified interpreters available to assist the process leading to even more use of the unqualified.

This would be a downward spiral that would be a disservice to all.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Cata Gomez April 13, 2018

State Certified Interpreter

Payment of services based on a one-hour minimum appointment would create a nightmare scenario for

interpreting agencies, doctors’ offices and patients. Asking an interpreter to commit to one-hour only

appointment would free this person to accept other appointments after the one hour at different locations.

We well know physicians can frequently be delayed in surgery, get behind due to on-call emergencies or


225

many other factors. Should the appointment go over the hour and the interpreter have to leave to another

commitment, the interpreting agency would have to scramble to find a second interpreter and if none

available, the appointment would have to be rescheduled to a later date, impacting the care provided to

the injured worker. Also no other interpreter would commit to finishing an appointment and be paid only

for the quarter hour increments which is how the agency would be reimbursed after the first hour. This

scenario is not the exception as appointments frequently last more than one hour. Maintaining the current

two-hour minimum allows for these types of delays and would prevent any disruption in patient care.

An interpreter should not asked to provide services for additional appointments at a discounted pro-rated

fee. Will attorneys, court reporters, physicians and other parties in the workers comp system be held to

the same standard for the same additional appointments? If not, it seems discriminatory to single out the

interpreting profession to being paid at a lesser rate compared to the other professionals in the system.

In the last few years there has been a trend for insurance companies to use more and more “provisionally”

qualified interpreters, many not at all qualified to provide interpreting services. A claims examiner

recently explained the reason for this. Insurance companies nowadays have limited their contracts to one

or two major interpreting companies, most of them based out-of-state. They have negotiated rates for

certified and “qualified” interpreters. The claims examiner stated they are receiving invoices from these

agencies for certified interpreters with outrageous amounts, giving an example of $270.00 for a medical

follow-up appointment of less than 2 hours, which is more than the doctor charged. With these choices

they are opting to go with the more inexpensive rate of provisionally qualified instead of certified

interpreters. They are not allowed to go out of the network and contract with the local certified

interpreters even though their rates would be much more reasonable. The local certified interpreters are

now being given the choice from these agencies of accepting a “qualified” rate, or more and more, not

working at all.

Certified interpreters are highly trained and experienced professionals who need the support at the state

and local levels to maintain the high standards of our work and to keep our jobs in the state of California.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Gladys Matthews, PhD April 13, 2018

Translator & Certified Court Reporter

Instructor Glendon College – York University, Toronto

Chair, NAJIT Board of Directors

We are in receipt of the proposed interpreter fee schedule from the California Division of Workers’

Compensation which was released for public comment on April 4. On behalf of the National Association


226

of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT), which I serve as Chair of the Board of Directors, I am

pleased to submit these comments.

As a national association, we are concerned whenever we see proposals with the potential to lower the

quality of services provided by language professionals. Of course, our focus is on the populations that

rely on quality language services for equitable access to the justice and healthcare systems. We have a

number of concerns about the proposal which mirror those of the California Workers’ Compensation

Interpreters Association (CWCIA). We are in full support of their recommendations for changes and urge

you to consider all of them carefully.

We are particularly concerned that state and federal certification processes that assure that language

professionals meet high standards for services to the public be supported and strengthened. California has

an excellent certification process in place, but the proposal would undermine it in important ways.

There are two specific recommendations we would like to emphasize:

1. §9934. Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Medical Treatment Appointments and

Medical-Legal Evaluations: (c) The medical provider shall determine if a proposed provisionally

certified interpreter has sufficient skill to be provisionally certified to interpret in the required

language. Even a cursory examination of this proposal shows how it undermines the principle of quality

assurance through certification. The point of quality assurance is that clients (in this case medical

providers) cannot, for a range of reasons, determine the level of skills held by language service providers.

This is the very reason certification was created.

2. §9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter. The proposals in this section are

problematic because they would make it far too easy for both clients and language service providers to

bypass the quality assurance process. In a nutshell, provisional certification should be reserved only for

those cases where certified interpreters are not available or there is no avenue for certification. The

proposed rules would make it possible to use non-certified interpreters only when it is inconvenient to

use a certified one, and that is too low a standard. It is very important to note that one of our concerns is

that this proposal would incentivize interpreters to not seek certification. Given the financial incentive to

use non-certified interpreters, we are concerned that more assignments would go to interpreters who do

not make the considerable effort required to gain certification.

I do not wish my focus on these provisions related to quality assurance to detract from the concerns

expressed by CWCIA regarding working conditions and fair compensation for interpreters. We are fully

supportive of their position on these issues.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Mark Setktnan April 13, 2018


227

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America

PCI presents the following comments on the public forum on interpreter regulations on behalf of its

members. PCI member companies write 39.8 percent of the workers compensation insurance in

California and PCI members write almost $23 billion in premiums annually comprising 31.2 percent of

the California property/casualty insurance market.

1. The existing regulations specify payment for travel time and mileage, but the proposed

regulations are silent on those issues. The proposed regulations should explicitly specify that

interpreters cannot bill for travel time and mileage.

2. It would be more efficient and cost effective for the employer to select and arrange the interpreter

for a hearing. An employer (or more precisely the employer’s insurer) is more likely than an

injured worker to have more than one hearing in the same time period. In such cases, it is better

for the employer to pay one interpreter instead of paying a different interpreter for each injured

worker who has a hearing in that time period. The certification process ensures that interpreters

chosen by the employer are competent and qualified.

3. It is unclear how an injured worker who is not covered by a medical provider network (MPN)

would know they need to arrange for an interpreter and how the injured worker would know how

to select a certified interpreter. It is also unclear what type of notice would have to be provided to

the injured worker not covered by an MPN and what occurs if the injured worker or their agent do

not notify the employer.

4. The half-day and full-day minimums are anachronistic and unnecessarily complicate the fee

schedule. Everything should be billed at an hourly rate, and every event should have a one-hour

minimum.

5. The regulations should specify how one determines whether a certified interpreter is “available”

within the meaning of 9931(e)(3)-(4). If the intent is to use the procedures listed in 9932(a)-(d),

that point should be clarified in the regulations.

6. The employer notice in 9931(g) seems entirely unnecessary. If the employer is responsible for

selecting the interpreter and the injured worker has provided appropriate notice of his or her need

for an interpreter, it should be taken for granted that one will be provided. If the employer fails to

provide an interpreter, the event should be rescheduled. It is not reasonable for the injured worker

to assume that the employer has forgotten to arrange an interpreter and schedule one for

themselves. The notice requirement increases administrative costs without appreciable benefit to

the injured worker. If the employer forgets to send the notice, the employer will end up paying for

two interpreters, which will drive up costs. There is also no process for determining when

sufficient notice was not provided.

7. Section 9931(g) assumes that the employer can contact the injured worker by telephone (with

voice mail), e-mail or text. The employer will not able to give notice if the injured worker does

not have a telephone (or does not have working voice mail) or e-mail or if the injured worker has

not consented to receive text messages.


228

8. The use of “select” and “arrange” in 9933 is ambiguous. In most cases the person selecting the

interpreter also arranges the interpreter. In 9931(e)(3), the injured worker selects, but the

employer arranges. In 9931(h)(1), “selecting” appears to include arranging. It is unclear whether

“the party responsible for selecting” in (h)(1) refers to the injured worker or the employer in

(e)(3).

9. The meaning of “the full time of the interpretation” in 9931(i) should be clarified. If two

interpreters are present but only one is used, the one who is not used should leave and should only

be entitled to a minimum fee. If, for example, a medial legal evaluation lasts for three hours, the

interpreter who is not used should not earn the same fee as the interpreter who is used.

10. If the employer complies with 9931(g) and two interpreters appear, 9931(i) should state that the

interpreter arranged by the employer will be used and the employer is not responsible for paying

the interpreters arranged by the injured worker.

11. The word “may” should be changed to “shall” in 9932(c). Expanding the search area should be

mandatory.

12. Does the language in 9933 (d) (1) mean that the written documentation referenced in 9933 (d)

must be presented to validate that a certified interpreter is not available and thus the provisionally

certified interpreter was assigned?

13. The word “that” should be changed to “whether” in 9933(d)(2). The hearing officer might not be

satisfied that a certified interpreter cannot be present.

14. Section 9934 (d) and (e) suggest that the interpreter has access to the medical file? How do they

get access to support their bill?

15. In 9936(c) the 75 percent fee for subsequent services within the same time period is excessive.

Subsequent services in the same time period should be billed at the hourly rate in quarter-hour

increments.

16. If the interpreter is not listed on one of the websites in 9938(b)-(c), the interpreter should be

required to provide proof of certification along with the bill.

17. The two-hour minimum for medical-legal evaluations is unreasonable. It should be a one-hour

minimum like other medical appointments.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Marina Herrera April 13, 2018

Certified Spanish Interpreter

I join CWCIA in voicing my concern as to the negative impact that the proposed regulation will have on

my profession, but most importantly, on the injured workers of California that have limited knowledge of

the English language.


229

As Vice-Chair of the Northern California Chapter of CWCIA I would request that you consider the

following suggestions and comments to the proposed language:





9931.


(c)(3):


















MPN.





230



(f) Half-Day means:









workers.















interpreter”.




231







worker.













will be an absolute and unmitigated administrative nightmare for judges, attorneys, interpreters, language

service providers and yes, even defense attorneys.









232


















Overburdening the Judges and doctors with administrative requirements that are practically


It does not allow for the difference between an individual working/billing the employer directly,


It does not solve the issue of constantly changing circumstances either at the WCAB or at

doctor’s offices. Sometimes an interpreter will arrive at the WCAB planning to cover one

assignment. If that assignment is completed and the interpreter has already sworn on the record

that their covered one case, then a defense attorney needs their services for an unforeseen

settlement that will be billed to a completely different carrier, what happens?



What if an interpreter is covering a hearing for one LSP and an emergency arises where they have

to cover a case for another LSP? Why should the first LSP take a pay cut? Should the interpreter

then refuse to help in that additional case, delaying the process needlessly?






233


disingenuous of them to complain about interpreters assisting on multiple cases when they do the

same. When and if this happens, it’s not because of scheming but a product of the market and

circumstances.

Free-lance interpreters are independent contractors, not employees! A fee regulation is

permissible under Labor Code rules requiring a uniform pay, however, where does the State,

Insurance Carrier or Employer have the authority to control their work schedules? For instance,

even if MPN doctors have their set fees, the State does not dictate how many patients a day they

can see nor are they asked to prorate their fees if they happen to get an last minute extra patient in

the same time frame.













Here are some:


frequent and unfounded objections and delays in payment. The Workers Comp interpreting

assignment doesn’t end when the event ends. Thereafter this assignment must be laboriously

invoiced, served, appealed, frequently subjected to the costs and delays of IBR. Sometimes

interpreters go for years without seeing a single dollar of pay for a simple WCAB appearance

they did. Court interpreters get their check at the end of the month.


234


must pay bookkeepers, self-employment insurance, lien reps, lien fees, extraordinary mileage and

travel costs, administrative and other expenses that the proposed fee is not factoring in.


hours per year. Free-lance interpreters have absolutely NO BENEFITS. They must buy their

own health insurance, have no sick-day or vacation pay, employer contribution for retirement and

certainly none of the protections that an employee has under Labor Laws.


from Southern California. Please refer to the Berkeley Study Group recommendations and their

frequent use of the term ‘fair market value’. We predict a huge exodus of certified professionals

from the Workers Compensation arena, which will affect injured workers detrimentally. We

understand and agree with the need for a set rate to prevent some abuses that ‘market rate’ rules

have caused. However, it is essential to allow for fee modifiers or ‘supplements” for certain high

cost areas where the above factors render the current proposed fees unsustainable for language

professionals and LSPs.


to the base amounts that have been proposed. An extra billable amount based on averages of

current reasonable fees. This will still provide a ceiling for fees while at the same time will

sustain interpreter availability in such areas, and will avoid a foreseen negative impact on limited

English proficient injured workers in many area.

Other remarks:






____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Helen Eby April 13, 2018

Certified Spanish Interpreter & Translator

Section 9936 (b) (3). This section proposes a one hour minimum. The previous standard had been a two

hour minimum.


235

1. This amounts to a 50% pay cut to interpreters. I expect many to refuse to serve Workers Comp

patients based on this situation. They may not be able to afford to do this work any more under these

conditions. A one hour minimum does not take into account what we call the setup and teardown

necessary for getting to the appointment, or the fact that appointments do not always run the specified

time. They often run longer. Under these conditions, interpreters will not be able to allow the extra

hour of pad in their schedules, and will have to leave appointments before they have finished, because

it is the end of the hour, in order to get to their next appointment. This does not benefit patients or

interpreters. Please return to the two hour minimum.

2. 9931 (h)(B). Qualified Interpreters. I do not see a definition of what a qualified interpreter is. I would

recommend that said interpreters, at a minimum, have been tested for language proficiency in both

languages at the Advanced High or Superior levels on the ACTFL scale and have taken at least 40

hours of training in interpreting, in a training that is approved by the State. Those qualified

interpreters could be listed on a roster, so they could be called on. This would allow for an objective

vetting of qualified interpreters.

3. 9933 (e) The hearing officer is not trained in evaluating interpreting skills. To be able to evaluate

interpreting skills, one has to be a competent interpreter. If the hearing officer were a competent

interpreter, he or she would not need an interpreter.

4. 9934 (c) A medical provider is as qualified to judge the qualifications of a qualified interpreter as a

hearing officer. In other words, this is not their area of expertise. Please see my recommendation

number 2.

5. 9932 (a) Requesters of interpreter services are only required to attempt to find three certified

interpreters before they call on an unqualified interpreter. Said provider could always call the same

overbooked interpreters, so they could meet the letter of the law, and be able to call the usual

unqualified interpreter in order to save money. This is what happens when unqualified interpreters are

paid significantly less than certified interpreters: providers are motivated to select the less qualified

providers in order to save.

6. 9932 ( c) It is not mandatory to go a second step and make a second try within a radius of 90 minutes

or 45 miles.

7. 9937. Billing fees can’t be the same for all languages and regions. Please return to market value. For

some languages, such as Vietnamese, or for rural areas, this second step is essential. These languages

also command higher rates of pay, and will not likely accept the same rate as the languages that are

more frequently needed. I would call this the cost of availability. In order to stay available, those who

are called less frequently need to demand a higher rate of pay to stay in business. We need them in

the market. Please consider this issue.


236

Yours, in support of the California Limited English Proficiency population and the professional

interpreters who serve them.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Veronica Jenks April 13, 2018

State of California Certified Administrative Hearing

And Medical Interpreter

I am a Certified Administrative Hearing and Medical Interpreter with 26 years of experience in Workers

Compensation. After reading the proposed rules I have to point out issues that I believe have not been

considered or taken into account important factors that make it possible for Independent

contractors (freelance interpreters) to provide important valid services. First things first, Language

Service Providers (LSPs) must be included under Section 9930 “Definitions”. LSPs are an important and

vital entity. Independent contractors would not be able to provide services without them. Independent

contractors rely on LSPs to obtain, book and confirm assignments; most importantly independent

contractors’ livelihood depend on receiving timely payment for their services. LSPs deal with the

Insurance Companies and defense attorneys when doing their billing and collection, which is not easy

due to objections and delays in payment. At times, this process can take months to years. LSPs assume

this responsibility and make it possible for Independent Contractors to be timely paid.

Second, it is discriminatory to impose a “Proration” under Section 9936 -Computation of Fees. Doctors,

attorneys and other ancillary services are not subjected, nor required to do so. Doctors do not charge a

prorated fee based on the number of patients seen per day, nor are they asked to document the number of

patients seen at any given day and/ or to include a tally of how many were seen by their Physician

Assistants or by the doctor him or herself during the same time period and to have to state such in the

medical reports and billing, declaring it under penalty of perjury as to the number of patients seen.

Simply, doctors bill a set fee schedule for each patient seen. Attorneys also get to bill for different

matters that are handled in a single half day or full day session. Often times attorneys appear at the

WCAB handling multiple cases and walk-through’s without having to report to each client how many

cases were handled in each morning or afternoon session and to report said number of cases under

penalty of perjury. In the case of ancillary services also, Physical and Psychology treatment / therapy,

Acupuncture, Aquatic therapy, X-Rays, MRIs and other studies, they all have a set fee schedule per

patient and per service provided. It makes no sense that Interpreters, who are officers of the court, have to

be scrutinized in such fashion on every day assignments. Interpreting assignments change from day to

day and location, at times with same day add-ons or last minute cancellations, not to mention the

confusion and errors that can occur in trying to keep a prorated fee,and how not to penalize independent

contractors for working with different LSPs and accepting assignments for the same half day or full day

sessions respectively. Simply said, it discriminates against interpreters.


237

Third, Section 9936 - Computation of Fees. Throughout this section it describes a full day as an 8 hour

day. I believe this is in error. A half-day session is designated as 3.5 hour session, either for morning or

afternoon. California Courts morning session runs from 8:30 am to 12:00 pm and afternoon, from 1:30

pm to 5:00 pm. This allows for attorneys, judges, court reporters and also interpreters to have time for

lunch and travel from one location to another. Although this proposed schedule of 3.5 hours (as a half-

day session) appears to be adequate for WCAB proceedings,it is unfeasible for other events such

as Depositions and sometimes Arbitrations, for these events are notorious for having a start time of

10:00am and 2:00pm. Under said proposal, it would be impossible for a freelance interpreter to be able to

accept a morning and afternoon assignment without running the risk that one will run into the

other. Thus, not allowing for travel and lunch time between assignments.

Fourth, Section 9936(2) – Reading of a Deposition. The proposed change fails to recognize that this

event is in essence the same as the Deposition itself. Applicant should be allowed to have an interpreter

read back and review the entire transcript and have the opportunity to make changes, if necessary. This

process takes place to protect the rights of the applicants. Therefore, it should be billed as a “Half-Day

or Full-Day” event.

Fifth, Section 9935(3) – Medical Treatment. Allowing a “One hour minimum” rather than the current

“two hour minimum” will cause potential issues for applicants. Freelance interpreters will be unable to

set aside enough time for each assignment since the “new minimum” will change the way in which

assignments are accepted and in order to be able to cover and accept sufficient appointments per day to

make a living. Actually, it doesn’t take into consideration other factors outside the control of the

interpreter, such as, waiting time due to doctors running behind schedule, patient running late,

overbooking of patients by medical facility, travel time to/from location, etc.

Sixth, Section 9936 (B) – Preparation of Deponent Prior to Deposition. This event should be listed also as

a separate event from the Deposition itself. It should be left at the discretion of the Applicant or if

represented, his/her Attorney to determine if he/she wishes to utilize the service of a different interpreter

for the purpose of preparing the client for such important part of the case. The applicant’s attorney and

his/her client to should have the right to select, if so desired, an interpreter with whom the applicant’s

attorney and applicant feel comfortable and familiar. The process, however customary it appears to be for

attorneys, court reporters and interpreters, it is NOT for the applicant and therefore it should be left

at the discretion of the applicant and/ or applicant’s attorney to choose a certified interpreter for the

purpose of Preparation prior to the Deposition.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_


238

M. E. Martinez April 13, 2018



It will require more paperwork by service providers

More litigation opens the state up to civil rights lawsuits like Lau v. Nichols 414 US 563 (1974)

Seeks to limit the earning potential of interpreter service providers and interpreters,

Who will have approved and sufficient skill to be deemed “provisionally” certified defies logic.

Interpreter services in isolated, rural areas and small Appeals Boards are scheduled by the court

calendars and medical provider schedules. ( Cities have volume, rural areas are limited) Market

rate should be left alone!








Strike “medical examinations” from the definition of 9930 (a)

“Certified interpreter for hearings and depositions”

Because interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website medical certification cannot do

interpreting in the legal setting.



CHANGE TO 7 HOURS Interpreters cannot be expected to work an 8-hour day, with no breaks.

ASTM Standard F-2089-15 Standard Practice for Language Interpreting, interpreting is a unique,

cognitively demanding activity that requires breaks. Refer to the DEFINITION under Section 3.1.1 and

Section 7.6 NUMBER OF INTERPRETERS REQUIRED ( multiple witnesses/experts)



(2) When appearing at a deposition, all or any part of 3.5 hours CHANGE TO 3 HOURS and KEEP


239

THE HALF DAY MORNING AND AFTERNOON DEFINITION FOR DEPOSITIONS ( PM depos

can be prorated according to individual market rate)

Reason:


time is 12:00, then 1:30 and 5:00 respectively, but NOT for depositions which take place in different

locations.Interpreters need time for lunch, and to travel from morning to afternoon assignments, which

often take place in different locations. Please refer to the En Banc Decision of Guitron vs. Santa Fe



AFTER (h) “Hearing officer” ADD:


Freelance interpreters don’t bill carriers directly. Agencies do a lot of legwork to provide interpreters for

the countless events that need scheduling daily. ISPs perform a vital function in coordinating interpreting

services across the state and interpreting services are proposed but not defined. The many languages

spoken in CA require the need and demands language service providers to continue being the 7th world

economy. It is fine time that these dedicated professionals are recognized and compensated adequately

by respecting one of the independent contractors given choices ' MARKET RATE' The individual

certified language provider has to pay yearly re-certification fees and also There is NO ALLOWANCE

for MILEAGE AND TRAVEL TIME 97% of the times, other providers in the system, including defense

attorneys who make up to $500 an hour in Work Comp settings are compensated. Do not eliminate this

country's opportunity to make a living. Market Rate is negotiable like all other contracting forms who

work under 1099 's. As you know the self employed has no employee benefits, no medical coverage etc.


informal settings

Reason: It is a trend in our industry for the applicant to sign settlement documents, in the applicant

attorney’s office, to avoid delaying settlement of a case until a hearing can be set.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_


240

William Glasser, President April 13, 2018

Language World Services, Inc.

I find the new rate structure to be unrealistic, and the acquiescence to use of uncertified interpreters for

medical appointments to be unjust to those interpreters who have taken the time and expense to become

certified through nationally recognized, bona fide certification organizations.

I have other concerns such as who will define and decide what a Provisional Interpreter is, and how will

they understand what comprises an interpreter’s competency for the work.

Provisional Interpreters will become the standard means to obtain interpreters, because the payor is

incentivized to pay less for the work, as volumes increase for Provisionals, the incentive for them to

become certified diminishes. We are impoverishing a professional career this way. Removing the

certification requirement will flood the market, depress prices, reward unqualified interpreters and

cheapen the profession.

Lowering of rates to 1 hour minimums are unrealistic, given the size, scope and burdens of traffic and

associated costs with going to and servicing assignments. No PRO RATION of the 2nd hour. Ridiculous

that professionals have to concede a discount for the blessing of a 2 hour day, when all other professions

are charged a reasonable fee structure.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Shilpa Kapadia April 13, 2018

SAI Professional Services

We are an interpreting agency that has been in this workers’ compensation arena for quite some time.

While we have so called “survived” the constant changes and twists and turns thrown at us, we are still

always pushed upon and taken for granted. We have been looked down upon and are considered at the

bottom of the totem pole in the workers’ compensation industry. We are at the mercy of the attorneys,

claims examiners and doctors. When we accept an assignment, we do not know if a case is accepted or

denied. We do not know the facts of the case. We do not know if we will even get paid. Yet we are

required to know all this when it comes time for us to get paid by the insurance companies! We are

simply a liaison between the parties mentioned. With the new regulations passed previously of using

only certified interpreters for every assignment, we have been hit with more costs incurred to us. With

the new lien filing fees of $150 we have had to write off many of our services that we had in which our

bill was less than the filing fee! Only interpreters and the agencies have had to do this, as most of the

other lien claimants on each case have bills much larger than us! But does anyone care? We don’t have


241

big lobbyists working for us in Sacramento. We are just a small piece in the big pie of the workers’

compensation industry.

While I am not here to complain, I do wish to express my feelings especially when the new laws and

regulations Sacramento is proposing is going to affect us DIRECTLY.

I feel that the proposed regulation 9937 is not going to work. It will lead to more litigation and more

payment disputes. It waters down the requirements to provide limited English proficient (LEP) injured

workers with professional interpreters and meaningful language access, a civil right afforded by Title VI.

The defense attorneys and medical doctors see many clients at WCAB hearings everyday and the doctors

see many patients at their clinic every day, so why are only the interpreters being picked on and have to

have a pro -rated fee schedule? I guess it’s like I mentioned before, the interpreters are at the bottom of

the totem pole in the workers comp arena!

I feel the interpreter or the agency should get paid same amount for each visit they interpret for and not

have it be pro-rated . All the interpreters are certified now due to new regulations the set forth couple of

years ago. They are professionals and they need to be treated as one, like the attorneys and medical

doctors. I understand that everyone wants a fee schedule like all other lien claimants have, but we need

to be fair. Our interpreters are professionals and they take their job very seriously.

The proposed fee schedule seeks to limit the earning potential of interpreter service providers and

interpreters, which in turn will limit the availability of certified interpreter to LEP injured workers.

It threatens to drive out professional interpreters from the workers’ compensation system.

While it can be agreed upon that in busy treatment medical facilities a one-hour minimum might be a






the LEP injured worker. Pro-rating interpreter services is unfair to interpreters in isolated, rural areas

and small Appeals Boards. Interpreters are at the mercy of court calendars and medical provider

schedules. Interpreters do not make their own schedules and should thus not be penalized when working

harder in the same time period.

Section 9934 states that Interpreters shall inform the medical provider whether this is the first or

subsequent interpretation during the same one-hour medical treatment appointment time period or the

same two-hour medical legal exam time period; the number of interpretations the interpreter

has already done during the same time period ; The medical provider shall note this information in the

medical-legal exam report or medical file. I feel this is unfair because frequently, scheduled assignments


242

and the actual outcome are different. There is no way for an interpreter or ISP to know how long an

assignment is expected to last. Guesstimating how many assignments within a one-hour period is

impossible.

This will be labor intensive for the medical provider and the interpreter. The medical provider’s failure to

comply may lead to the employer objecting to pay an interpreter’s bill.

Section 9936 regarding computation of fees is ridiculous and won’t work. This is because interpreters

should be entitled to some minimum amount in order to ensure that a particular assignment is worth their

while. The two-hour minimum is an industry wide standard. Many assignments require an interpreter to

travel to the site where services are to be rendered.

Interpreters constantly have to turn down time-conflicting assignments. No interpreter will travel over

one hour and 60 miles, as in the case in many, many regions of California to be paid for one hour of the

sight translation of a court binding document, as in the case of deposition transcript reviews, at the one

hour minimum rate of $56.00! This is even less than what this proposal allows for a “provisionally” non-

certified interpreter at a medical treatment appointment (see MTI-2) : $57.75 per hour. LEP injured

workers will lose meaningful language access to workers’ compensation services when professional

interpreters leave the field for greater respect, equal pay and improved working conditions in this fast-

growing industry.

Interpreters are being singled out like no other providers: like I mentioned before, why are interpreters

required to pro-rate their services? Doctors can see 5 patients in a day, or 10 or 20, as long as they bill at

fee schedule.


appointment. Attorneys at the WCAB do not prorate their fees to different clients. Restaurants do not

charge less on busy nights. Jiffy-lube doesn’t charge less the more customers they service in any given

hour. This is completely discriminatory and unfair to the interpreters and agencies.

I urge the DWC to please consider our concerns mentioned above. This is our livelihood. Interpreters

are professionals and should be treated equivalent to the attorneys and doctors in this workers

compensation industry. The new proposal will open the state up to civil rights lawsuits like Lau v.

Nichols 414 US 563 (1974)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Julie Burns, M.Ed. April 13, 2018

American Translators Association


243






9931.


(c)(3):


















MPN.






(f) Half-Day means:


244









workers.















interpreter”.









injured worker.


245
































246


















Court reporters are scarce these days. Does the record need to be modified? What if the only

court reporter of the day is busy with a trial? What if the doctor had to leave?






Have you considered the possibility of a separate interpreter servicing each and every separate

job individually. What would be the savings to the carriers?




circumstances.








247













Here are some:

Superior Court employee interpreters have the guarantee of payment. We don’t. We are subject

to frequent and unfounded objections and delays in payment. The Workers Comp interpreting









hours per year. Free-lance interpreters have absolutely NO BENEFITS. They must buy their own

health insurance, have no sick-day or vacation pay, employer contribution for retirement and













248




Other remarks:






____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Gaye Gentes, Program Director April 13, 2018

Found in Translation

While I am a resident of Massachusetts I feel compelled to comment on these proposed Interpreter

Regulations http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/ForumDocs/Interpreter/Text-of-Regulations.pdf I am the former

Manager of the Office of Court Interpreters for the Trial Courts of Massachusetts and have also managed

an hospital based interpreter services. I currently work training low income bilingual women in a free

medical interpreter certificate training and am a sometimes Spanish interpreter as well. The conditions

and fees set forth by this proposal are alarming.

Provisional v. Certified Interpreters----When we wrote the Standards and Procedures for the Office of

Court Interpreters in Massachusetts we acknowledged the reality that we would not always have certified

interpreters in every instance and allowed for ‘screened’ interpreters as well (those who had passed a

written screening exam and gone through a mandatory training and a mentorship but have not taken a

certification exam). However we allowed for the use of these screened interpreters only in the instance

where a certified interpreter was not available. Certified interpreters were given priority. Certified

interpreters are career professionals who have spent time and money honing their craft and are at the top

of the profession——if we do not give them priority and acknowledge their proven superior skills they

may leave the profession entirely and we will be left with the mediocre or untested interpreters. Quality

of service will suffer.

Allowing monolingual medical providers and hearing officers decide who is qualified to interpret based

on their own criteria. This idea completely misunderstands the skills involved in interpreting. Allowing a

medical provider to determine that a person is highly proficient in English and the target language, that

they are trained in the interpreting modes and understand the tenets of impartiality, confidentiality,

transparency and accuracy is akin to asking the interpreter to assess the medical provider in their

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/ForumDocs/Interpreter/Text-of-Regulations.pdf


249

speciality. Interpreters need to be assessed by professionals who have the appropriate skills and

understanding of the requirements of the profession. I also imagine this places an unfair burden on the

providers and may open them up to liability if they judge the skills of the ‘interpreter’ wrongly.

One Hour Minimum As a former manager I understand the need to keep costs down however this again

misunderstands the interpreting profession and the fact that interpreters are not like taxis—when one

passenger gets out—another gets in. They need to schedule assignments in advance and they need to

allow time in between. Interpreters need to be paid a two hour minimum. Managing efficiency of services

at a hospital and in the courts we tried to bundle interpreter cases so that the interpreter was kept busy

and not coming in for a series of isolated cases. This served the same purpose of saving money but it

recognized the reality of the interpreter’s scheduling.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Gonzalo Campos April 13, 2018

California State Certified Medical Interpreter

Cert# 500089





9767.3 Requirements for a MPN: Please add language allowing for Interpreter Service Providers (ISPs)

and interpreters to be notified when an MPN chooses to provide INTERPRETING as ancillary services.

REASON:








250





depositions”

Reason:




(e) “Full day" means interpreting services performed which exceedone half-day, up to 8 hours. CHANGE

TO 7 HOURS

Reason:





breaks.


REQUIRED





to 12:00 pm AND 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm

Reason:


time is 12:00, then 1:30 and 5:00 respectively, but not for depositions which take place

in different locations. Interpreters need time for lunch, and to travel from morning to afternoon


251

assignments, which often take place in differing locations. Please refer to the En Banc Decision of

Guitron vs. Santa Fe Extruders/ SCIF and the Mercedes Osuna BAK 141379 case



Reason:








Reason:




Reason:



Under §9930. Definitions:Add definition for: NO SHOW FEES

Reason:


252


reimbursed no less than the minimum fee unless notified of a cancelation at least 24 hours

prior to the time the service is to be provider. Unexpected cancellations are out of the interpreter’s

control.







Reason:


injured worker has selected and arranged for the presence of the interpreter, so that the employer

has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter. THIS MAKES NO SENSE, it is

contradictory.



Reason:




interpreter present on site to be asked to perform the services, which in turn are objected to

by the employer, and go unpaid.





253

Reason:





interpreter.

Section 9932. Requirements to Establish that

a Certified Interpreter Cannot Be Present:

All of the following requirements must be met to establish that a certified interpreter cannot be

present:(a) A party shall contact by telephone, fax, or email at least three interpreter service providers to

request that a certified interpreter be available at the event.

Reason:




Section 9932. Requirements to Establish that

a Certified Interpreter Cannot Be Present:






business day.

Reason:





254

is on site and available and states that the employer did not contact him, he does not get to perform

the services.








Reason:



etc.












Reason:


whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter? This is simply absurd

The interpreter profession has already provided the DIR/DWC with a work-around: on May 20, 2016, a

document titled Provisionally Certified Interpreter Appeal, signed by 14 interpreting associations, nation-

wide, was sent to AD Parisotto and Staff Cousel Hersh warning about the dangers and recommending an



255


protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964













interpreters on the websites listings. Because the medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the

employer objecting to pay an interpreter’s bill Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already

requires this information Because this places an undue burden on medical providers



(e) Interpreters shall inform the medical provider whether this is the

first or subsequent interpretation during the same one-hour medical

treatment appointment time period or the same two-hour medicallegal

exam time period; the number of interpretations the interpreter

has already done during the same time period ; The medical

provider shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report

or medical file.

Reason:

Because frequently, scheduled assignments and the actual outcome

are different. There is no way for an interpreter or ISP to know

how long an assignment is expected to last. Guesstimating how

many assignments within a one-hour period is impossible.

This will be labor intensive for the medical provider and the interpreter.


256

The medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the employer




Reason:















busy nights. Jiffy-lube doesn’t charge less the more customers they service in any given hour.



Add billing code for review and signing of settlement documents at informal settings

Reason:





257

THIS ENTIRE SECTION

Reason:



solution has already been presented to the DWC both in writing and in person on several

occasions. The BRG study included a compilation of fees charged by interpreters throughout the state.


(LLD). Many of these interpreters receive a small volume of assignments per year and the fees must

be higher in order to ensure availability to the injured worker. Additionally these interpreters must travel

long distances to preform services. Many LLD interpreters have expressed that these proposed fees

would drive them out of workers’ compensation and into other industries with better compensation.

Because the two-hour minimum is an industry wide standard. Because many assignments require an

interpreter to travel to the site where services are to be rendered. Because the free hand of the market

should prevail.






Reason:


interpreter providing the services. It is called an Interpreter Verification Form (IVF) Because when an



____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Mary Lee Behar, CA Court Certified Interpreter April 13, 2018

Spotlight Interpreter


258

I am writing to you as a certified court interpreter and the owner of a small agency. I appreciate your

efforts to better conditions for interpreters and standardize our profession, but I have some concerns

about the current proposal.

While the rates you propose would be pretty fair net pay for an interpreter covering a half day (0-3 hours)

and a full day (3-6 hours), it would pretty much put agencies out of business. As an agency, I currently

charge $375 and $750 for the half and full day respectively. I also bill $450/900 if it is an assignment in

court. My rates for Romanian are pretty much double.

I think it should be made very clear in the wording that interpreters and agencies can negotiate their own

rates, terms, and conditions. It should also be clear that in many parts of California, a half day is 0-3

hours and a full day is 3-6 hours.

I also noticed that the wording regarding who can interpret at certain proceedings needs to be clarified. It

should explain which assignments a medically certified interpreter can cover and what certifications are

recognized. It should state the same for administratively certified interpreters and court certified

interpreters and federally certified interpreters, each listed in their own section. There should also be

some verbiage about how one can verify the credentials for each type of interpreter.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Kevin Mitchell, Director of Business Development April 13, 2018

Communicaid

This proposal has many flaws but I will focus my comments on the most critical ones that I see. Most

importantly is the fact that this rate schedule is not at all reasonable. It does not take into account the

agencies that are crucial to keeping the interpreting system running for all parties involved: the

independent interpreters, the attorneys, the doctors, the injured workers, the courts and the claims

examiners. The proposed rates are geared towards the pay that an individual interpreter MIGHT find fair

(though very low in many cases), but does not account for the agencies that manage the flow of the work

and allow the parties involved to quickly and efficiently set up services, make changes, book last minute

assignments, collect bills, offer training for interpreters, etc. The rates proposed here will force pressure

on the agencies and the independent interpreters to work for rates that will make it very difficult to run

successful businesses. The system will have many difficulties finding good certified interpreters to work

for these low rates.

Often it feels like the attitude towards the interpreting agencies is that they are charging outrageous rates

for an unimportant service that anyone can do, but the truth is that the agencies are often charged high

rates by the good, certified interpreters that are required to be used for many appointments. Agencies are

often charged rates by good, certified interpreters that are much higher than the rates being proposed

here, even for Spanish! This is simply the cost of having good service and quality. No one is getting rich


259

doing this. Sometimes the agencies make almost nothing on many of the appointments, with the majority

of the billed rate going to the interpreters. And even as an authorized vendor the agencies often do not

receive payment for many months, spending time sending multiple reminders to receive a payment.

Other more rare languages charge much more than what is proposed here. Some of the certified

languages have only 1 or 2 interpreters in certain areas of the state (e.g. Punjabi, Korean and Tagalog

only have only a few per language in all of northern California, but even for Spanish, Vietnamese and

other languages, certain areas have only a few good certified interpreters) and they are in demand from

other courts besides the WCAB, so their time is valuable. The rates they charge the agencies are much

higher than what is being proposed here. The result will be that they will either have to work for a lower

rate (which many will not) or some assignments will not be able to procure interpreters.

There has to be a rate scale that takes into account the different ranges in fees for different languages.

Even though there is a shortage of Spanish certified interpreters in many areas there is an extreme

shortage of interpreters for many of the other languages. We have been a service agency for over 25 years

and we still struggle at times to find good interpreters in Vietnamese, Tagalog, Punjabi and so forth.

There simply are not enough interpreters, certified or not, to take care of all the assignments across the

variety of languages.

Additionally, even though some treatment appointments are shorter than two hours, the industry standard

has always been a two hour minimum per Labor Code. The interpreters have to spend a lot of time

driving all over the place to different appointments, often paying for parking or other fees, helping the

injured worker with paperwork, waiting for the appointment to start and finally doing the actual

interpreting in the exam room. Even if the time with the doctor only takes half an hour there is all the

other time spent that the interpreter deserves to be compensated for. A two hour minimum is the fair rate

for all appointments. Forcing a 1 hour minimum will reduce the number of interpreters willing to work,

which will make it even more difficult to fill the assignments. There has to be a more fair way to

compensate the interpreters and the agencies that fulfill the work.

I urge the DWC to take more steps to understand the scope of this issue before making any final

decisions about this proposal. Have they interviewed both interpreters and agencies for their input on

rates and hours required for the different appointments?

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Jackie April 13, 2018


260

As much as we appreciate interpreters finally getting a few schedule in place there are many issues that

weren’t taken into consideration as well as a serious DISCRIMINATION against interpreters that will

result in many civil lawsuits.

Section 9936 (B) - Deposition Prep’s are not listed as a valid service and are included in the defense

attorney’s half day interpreters fees. Many applicant attorneys feel it’s a client/attorney possible conflict

of interest to have the same interpreter for the deposition hired by the defense firm as the one for the

prep. A preparation of the deposition is now a valid separate service in the current labor code and we

would need it to be separated as a valid service for those applicant attorneys that do want a separate

interpreter.

Section 9936 (2) - - Reading of deposition is now changed to hourly not half day like a deposition or

hearing which makes no sense since the interpreter should not be timed on how long it takes to read the

transcript back and should be allowed half day as any other legal setting. If we are limited to an hourly

prorated fee like a medical it will be difficult for any legal interpreter to accept this type of

appointment. This should be a similar setting to the deposition itself as the reading can take longer. We

will not be able to schedule interpreters half day as they want to rush to another assignment since it’s not

prorated.

Section 9935 (3) - Treatment – now allowing only one hour minimum instead of the current two hour

minimum – if this passes interpreters will schedule appointments one after the other and not reserve two

hours as they do now which allows for wait time, the applicant arriving late or any other issue that arise

at a medical facility. Potential issues with this is the applicant will now have to have to wait for a

second interpreter to arrive since the first will leave after one hour since we can only ask them to reserve

one hour. As many providers like Health Point are utilized for treatment it is well known that wait times

are up to one hour. If we schedule the interpreter one hour since that is all we can guarantee the injured

worker will be the one to be impacted as the doctors rarely run on time.

Section 9937 – Billing Fees and Codes: The new Fee schedule does not allow for different fees for

other than Spanish not so common Languages which will cause interpreters to leave the industry. It’s not

fair to pay a Spanish interpreter the same since the Spanish interpreter will be able to work daily and for

multiple appointments. The other languages are not so busy and there is lesser demand of certified

interpreters. There will be a demand for interpreters of other languages other than Spanish. This will

force again the use of provisionally certified interpreters. Maybe that is their intent? It’s impossible to

ask an interpreter getting one job a week to bill the same as one that gets several a day.

Section 9936 Computations of Fees

We again appreciate a fee schedule be set for legal and medical settings, however it will complicate the

system to have to document the number of hearings. It would be easier on the entire system to find an

amount to bill for all hearings. The way it’s written how do we decide who gets paid the initial rate of


261

255.00? Instead of wasting valuable court time with more documentation it’s easier to reduce the rate for

hearings only between the two rates. Deposition fees should be considered separate as it is in a different

setting.

Medical providers now have to as well waste their time documenting how many assignments the

interpreter has. Again, a lower but equal amount seems easier than having the doctors slow down their

day to document something that only has to do with the interpreter billing. Again inconvenient for the

injured worker as well as they need to be present for this information that has nothing to do with them or

the facility.

Again this computation language should be removed as it’s only going to confuse the system and slow it

down. No attorneys or doctors have to document this so why are the discrimination against the

interpreter? They are being penalized for doing more than one assignment while other providers are free

to do as many as they want or need to? Why can doctors and defense firms charge per client and

interpreters can’t? We are the vital link for the civil rights of the applicant to have an interpreter if they

are not proficient in English.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Manuel Lopez April 13, 2018


Two points have been brought to my attention, which I hope you’ll address properly.








____________________________________________________________________________________

Angie Birchfield, Chair April 13, 2018

Interpreters Guild of America


262

On behalf of the Interpreters Guild of America, we thank you for the opportunity to continue to

communicate directly with you and other DIR personnel and we are happy to share our input and

concerns as subject matter experts in interpreter matters. As such, let us underscore the most important

issues that need to be addressed and clarified in upcoming rulemaking for interpreters.

First and foremost, the rates proposed in the fee schedule:

Although the rates presently suggested in the DIR proposal are slightly above the US Courts per diem

rates, those per diem rates are designed solely as direct compensation to independent contractor

interpreters working in a single courthouse location. By contrast, the majority of interpreters in Workers

Compensation are booked through language service agencies (LSPs) and work outside the WCAB

locations in discovery and medical assignments. Therefore, a Workers’ Comp fee schedule must make

some provision for a premium or admin fee for the intermediary language agency. Otherwise, the

independent interpreter will be offered substandard rates, which will affect injured workers and their right

to adequate interpreting services. Lowering the compensation to individual interpreters also fosters the

use of non-certified people willing to work for substandard fees. One already sees that being prevalent in

deposition preparations, transcript reviews and documents signing, where the oversight provided under

AB2370 is absent.

We strongly suggest making the fee schedule a true indicator of the fees that go to the individual

interpreter doing the work, rather than a ceiling for the language agencies’ (LSP’s) billing. The

agencies’ (LSP’s) administrative costs and profit can be addressed separately by those entities that

directly contract the LSPs and are most reliant on their services. The agencies (LSPs) serve a useful

function to law firms, medical providers and insurance carriers. They offer them one stop shopping for

interpreting services. Therefore, let the LSPs compete on the basis of their service pricing and

administrative reliability, rather than how much they can squeeze out of interpreters or how little they can

pay non-certified students.

Additionally, IGA wishes to reiterate our position that the 3.5 and 8 hour / half and full day clause is

unworkable outside of single location, WCAB trials and hearings. Working a 3½ hours half-day simply

does not allow sufficient time for an interpreter in the field to complete 2 assignments on a given day.

This is due to scheduling and the distances interpreters must travel for each assignment. For the most

part, morning depositions begin between 9:30am-10 am and end at 12pm. Afternoon depositions begin

between 1pm-1:30pm and end at 5pm. Unlike working at the WCAB or in a courthouse, the interpreter in

a deposition works alone, not in an interpreting team as they do in California Superior Court and does not

cover multiple assignments in one location.

IGA believes that interpreters are the ones best suited to establishing the working conditions and

protocols in our profession since we are independent contractors and these are policies that have been in

place for the last 30 years.


263

Regarding the use of non-certified interpreters, IGA maintains that neither an administrative law judge,

nor an insurance adjuster, nor a medical doctor have the qualifications to provisionally certify an

interpreter. We firmly believe that there are enough certified interpreters in California to cover all

assignments.

That being said, we can also agree that a reliable and verifiable process for finding available certified

interpreters is needed. However, the currently proposed three-call provision is unworkable. How would

the DIR enforce the requirement of contacting three interpreters before someone can be provisionally

certified? Will there be an “interpreter” department at the DIR to handle compliance?

Given that there are searchable online databases of certified interpreters, IGA can offer its “online”

system that provides for searching for available, certified interpreters in locations across the state. IGA

would be happy to work with the DIR on the feasibility of using our statewide, searchable database for

interpreter availability. With this system, if no certified interpreter were available, there would be a

computer screen-shot to confirm it.

With respect to a uniform interpreter rate statewide, IGA never suggested that rates should be equal

throughout California.

With regard to the provisional qualification of a non-certified individual, we believe that it should adhere

to the State Court rules for provisional qualification. This includes confirmation that the individual has

taken the written component of either the state interpreter exam or the medical certification exams. They

must also show proof that they are actively preparing for and taking the oral performance exam. The

individual is given provisional qualification for not more than 2 years after which they are no longer

eligible to continue to interpret if they have not successfully passed the exam.

Please see the suggested changes:



Chapter 1 Division of Workers’ Compensation

Article 3. Qualified Medical Evaluator Regulations

Assignment of Qualified Medical Evaluators, Evaluation Procedure


(c) The QME shall state in the notification whether a Certified Interpreter as described in Labor Code section

5811 and subject to the provisions of California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 9930(b) and 9934 is

required, and, if so, the language to be used. The employer shall select and arrange for the presence of the


264

interpreter as provided in California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9931(d) and pay the cost of the

interpreter as provided for in section 5811 of the Labor Code.






§9767.3 Requirements for a Medical Provider Network Plan.

(c)(3) If an MPN chooses to provide ancillary services, the ancillary service provider file shall have only the

following six columns. The columns shall be in the following order: (1) the name of each ancillary service

provider (2) specialty or type of service (3) physical address (4) city (5) zip code of each ancillary service

provider. If the ancillary service or ancillary service provider is mobile, list the covered service area within

California. By submission of an ancillary provider listing, the applicant is affirming that the providers listed can

provide the requested medical services or goods and have a current valid license number or certification to

practice, if they are required to have a license or certification by the State of California. If interpreter services

are included as an MPN ancillary service, the interpreters listed must be certified as defined in section 9930(b)







(a) “Certified interpreter for hearings and depositions” is an individual listed as a certified interpreter for

administrative hearings, medical examinations, or state court proceedings on the State Personnel Board website

at http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/Interpreterlisting or is listed as a certified interpreter on the California Courts website at

http://courts.ca.gov/programs-interpreters.htm in one of the following languages: Spanish, Tagalog, Arabic,

Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Vietnamese, American Sign Language, Eastern Armenian, Western

Armenian, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Punjabi, or Russian, or other languages authorized or designated pursuant

to Government Code sections 11435.40, 11435.35, and 68562.




265



following the languages: Spanish, Tagalog, Arabic, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Vietnamese,

American Sign Language, Eastern Armenian, Western Armenian, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Punjabi, or

Russian, or other languages authorized or designated pursuant to Government Code sections 11435.40,

11435.35, and 68562; and meets one of the following requirements:


(2) Is certified as a medical interpreter by the California Department of Human Resources as appears on the State

Personnel Board website at http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/InterpreterListing; or

(3) Has a valid and current Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI) certification/credential

in Spanish, Mandarin, or Arabic; or

(4) Has a valid and current National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters (National Board)

certification/credential in Spanish, Russian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, or Vietnamese. ***National Board

should not be recognized as a valid certification/CMI need to get a recertification by an entity with a valid

test***

(c) "Claims administrator" is the person or entity responsible for providing security for the payment of

compensation for any of the following: a self-administered insurer providing security for the payment of

compensation required by Divisions 4 and 4.5 of the Labor Code, a self-administered self-insured employer, the

director of the Department of Industrial Relations as administrator for the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust

Fund (UEBTF) or for the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF), or a third-party claims administrator

for a self-insured employer, insurer, legally uninsured employer, joint powers authority, the Self-Insurers’

Security Fund, or the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA).

(d) “Employer” is the employer, the insurer of an insured employer, a claims administrator, or an entity acting

on behalf of any of them.

(e) “Full day" means interpreting services performed which exceed one half-day, up to 8 hours for the WC

Board and 6 hours for depositions, etc.


(1) When appearing at any hearing of the appeals board or a daytime arbitration, all or any part of either a

morning or afternoon session; or

(2) When appearing at a deposition, all or any part of 3 hours; or



266

(3) When appearing at an evening arbitration, all or any part of 3 hours.

(g) “Hearing” includes an appearance or proceeding before the appeals board, an arbitration, settlement

conference, Information and Assistance conference, or an appearance or proceeding before an assigned hearing

officer, or other similar settings determined by the Administrative Director to be reasonably necessary to

determine the validity and extent of injury to an injured worker, or issues related to entitlement to benefits.

(h) “Hearing officer” is the individual designated to conduct or preside at a hearing. The hearing officer may be

a Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge or arbitrator.

(i) “Medical Treatment Appointment” means an appointment with a health care provider providing medical

treatment pursuant to Labor Code section 4600.


(k) “Provisionally certified interpreter for hearings and depositions” means an individual deemed qualified

to interpret at hearings and depositions when the requirements in sections 9931(a) and 9933 have been met.

(l) “Provisionally certified interpreter for medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations”

means an individual deemed qualified to interpret at medical treatment appointments or medical-legal

evaluations when the requirements in sections 9931(a) and 9934 have been met.

(m) “Qualified interpreter” is a language interpreter providing interpreter services to an injured worker who

does not proficiently speak or understand the English language and is one of the following: (i) a certified

interpreter for hearings and depositions; or (ii) a provisionally certified interpreter for hearings and depositions

when a certified interpreter for hearings and depositions cannot be present; or (iii) a certified interpreter for

medical treatment appointments and medical-legal exams; or (iv) a provisionally certified interpreter for medical

treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations when a certified interpreter for medical treatment

appointments and medical-legal evaluations cannot be present.

Authority cited: Sections 133, 4600, 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code. Reference: Sections 4600, 4620, 4621,

5710 and 5811, Labor Code; and Sections 11435.15, 11435.20, 11435.30, 11435.35, 11435.40, 11435.55 and




(a) Certified interpreters in the languages set forth in sections 9930(a) and (b) shall be used, except when a

certified interpreter cannot be present, as provided in section 9932, after exhausting the selection procedures of

this section.







267

The requirements of this subdivision shall not apply to a first medical treatment appointment where the delay to

obtain a certified interpreter may pose an imminent and serious threat to the injured worker’s health.

(b) Hearings. The injured worker shall select and arrange for the presence of an interpreter.

(c) Depositions.



reading of a deposition transcript to the deponent prior to signing, and the reading of prior volumes of deposition

transcript in preparation for continuation of a deposition.

(d) Medical-Legal Evaluations. The employer shall select and arrange for the presence of an interpreter.


For accepted claims and claims under investigation pursuant to Labor Code section 5402, interpreters shall be

selected and arranged for as follows:

(1) If the injured worker is not a covered employee, as defined in section 9767.1(a)(2), in a Medical Provider

Network (MPN), the injured worker shall select and arrange for the presence of the interpreter.

(2) If the injured worker is a covered employee in an MPN that does not include an ancillary interpreter provider

service, the injured worker shall select and arrange for the presence of a certified interpreter in the required

language, who is available at reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area.


that offers certified interpreting services in the language required, and there are certified interpreters in that

language available at reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area, the injured worker must select

and utilize an individual interpreter or interpreter service from the ancillary service provider list. If individual

interpreters are listed by the interpreter provider service, the injured worker shall choose which certified

interpreter to use. All interpreters provided through an MPN ancillary interpreting service provider must be

certified as defined in section 9930(b). The employer shall arrange for the presence of the employee-selected



that does not have certified interpreters available in the required language, at reasonable times and within a

reasonable geographic area, the injured worker shall select and arrange for the presence of a certified interpreter

in the required language outside the MPN, who is available at reasonable times and within a reasonable

geographic area.


268



selection, so the employer has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter. If the event is set to

occur within the next two business days, the injured worker or his/her agent, shall notify the employer of the

selection of the interpreter, on the same day the arrangement for the event was made.

(g) Employer Obligation to Notify Injured Worker of Interpreter Selection. If the employer is responsible for

selecting the interpreter, the employer shall notify the injured worker or his/her agent, if represented, at least two

business days prior to the time for the interpretation by telephone (with voice mail message if no answer), e-

mail, or text message that a qualified interpreter has been selected and will be present at the event. If the medical

treatment appointment scheduled to occur within two business days of the employer becoming aware that an

interpreter is needed, the employer shall immediately contact the employee in a manner listed above that a

qualified interpreter has been selected and will present at the event.


(1) If the party responsible for selecting the interpreter is unable to arrange for the presence of a qualified

certified interpreter, or if the employer fails to provide the notice required by subdivision (g), the other party

may arrange for a qualified interpreter to be present and that interpreter shall be used.


(A) At hearings, the hearing officer shall determine if a qualified certified interpreter is available on the

premises meeting the requirements of this Article, and if so, that interpreter shall be used.

(B) At medical-legal evaluations or medical treatment appointments, if the medical provider has a qualified

certified interpreter on staff at the site available, that interpreter shall be used.

(i) Employer Fee Obligation for Non-Compliance with Notice Requirement. If the employer was responsible for

selecting the interpreter and fails to comply with the notice requirement of subdivision (g), and two interpreters

are present at the event, one selected by the employer and one selected by the injured worker, hearing officer, or

medical provider, as provided in subdivision (h), the interpreter provided by the injured worker, hearing officer

or medical provider shall be used and the employer shall be obligated to pay for both interpreters for the full time

of the interpretation.

Authority cited: Labor Code sections 133, 4050, 4060, 4600, 4600.3, 4614, 4616, 4621, 5307.3, 5710, 5811.

Reference: Sections 3209.3, 3209.5, 3700, 4600, 4616, 4616.3, 4620, 4621, 5401; and Government Code

sections 11435.30, 11435.35, and 68562.



269


(a) A party shall contact by telephone, fax, or email at least three all interpreter service providers to request that a

certified interpreter be available at the event. Each interpreter service provider contacted must be a separate

entity. An interpreter provider service is considered a single interpreter provider service for purposes of this

section even if it that has access to, contracts with, or employs, more than one interpreter.

(b) The three interpreter service providers contacted must be located within 60 minutes driving time or 30 miles

distance from the location where the interpreter services are to be provided, except as provided in subdivision

(c).

(c) If a party cannot identify three interpreter service providers that have certified interpreters available in the

area set forth in subdivision (b) due to the rural or sparsely populated nature of the area, that party may expand

the area for locating and contacting the three interpreter service providers to within 90 minutes driving time or 45

miles distance from the location where the interpreter is required.


certified interpreter, including the telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, dates and times of each

contact, and the names of the individuals who indicated that the interpreter service provider had no certified

interpreters available for the event. The written record shall contain, if applicable, a statement that an interpreter

service provide did not respond to the inquiry made under subdivision (a) within one business day.


interpreter, after exhausting the requirements of this section, the alternative selection process of section 9931(h)

shall apply. If the employer is the party initially responsible and fails to comply with the notice requirements of

section 9931(g), the provisions of section 9931(i) also apply.


(a) Certified interpreters in the languages set forth in section 9930 shall be used at hearings and depositions,

except when a certified interpreter cannot be present after meeting the requirements in sections 9931 and 9932.

(b) A certified interpreter shall present his/her credential or badge with photo identification to the hearing officer,

the parties at hearings, and to the parties at depositions for their review to verify the individual is the interpreter

represented on the credential or badge. Pursuant to AB2370 the interpreter will state their appearance on

the record. This will include their name and certification number.

(c) A provisionally certified interpreter shall present his/her photo identification to the hearing officer, the

parties at hearings, and the parties at depositions for their review to verify the individual is the interpreter

represented on the photo identification.


270

(d) If a provisionally certified interpreter is used at an event in one of the certified languages set forth in section

9930 because a certified interpreter cannot be present, the following additional procedure shall be followed:

(1) The party initially responsible for selecting or arranging for the certified interpreter shall state on the record

that a certified interpreter cannot be present and state on the record the contact information required to be

recorded by section 9932(d); and

(2) The hearing officer shall state on the record that he/she is satisfied that a certified interpreter cannot be

present, after exhausting the selection procedures of section 9931.

(e) As to all interpreters, the hearing officer shall determine on the record whether the prospective interpreter has

sufficient skill and is competent to interpret in the required language, whether it is a certified or non-certified

language to be deemed a certified or provisionally certified interpreter for hearings and depositions. The hearing

officer will base the decision upon the interpreter’s experience in interpreting, language training, conflict of

interest considerations, education, and interpreter’s understanding of non-disclosure and ethical requirements.

(f) All interpreters shall state on the record the following information: the interpreter’s full name, whether this is

the first or a subsequent interpretation during the same one-half day or full day time period; the number of

interpretations the interpreter has already done during the same time period; and the total number of hearings or

depositions the interpreter is scheduled to perform during the same time period. In addition, certified interpreters

shall state on the record the name of the certifying agency or organization and the interpreter’s certification

credential or badge number.

(g) The hearing officer or court reporter shall swear in the interpreter with an interpreter oath.

(h) At appearances before hearing officers regarding off the record interpretations, including minute order

agreements, stipulations, and compromises and releases, the party providing the interpreter shall represent to the

hearing officer that the interpreter whose name appears in the minute order did the interpretation and that their

identity and credential has been verified.

Authority cited: Sections 133, 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code. Reference: Sections 5710 and 5811, Labor

Code; and Sections 11435.20, 11435.15, 11435.30, 11435.35, 11435.40, 11435.55, and 68562, Government

Code.


Legal Evaluations.

The following procedures shall be followed when using interpreters at medical treatment appointments and

medical-legal evaluations:


271

(a) Certified interpreters in the languages set forth in section 9930 shall be used at medical treatment

appointments and medical-legal evaluations except when a certified interpreter cannot be present, after meeting

the requirements of sections 9931 and 9932.

(b) Provisionally certified interpreters shall not be used for interpretation in the certified languages set forth in

section 9930(b), unless the employer has given prior consent to use the interpreter in addition to the requirements

of subdivision (a).

(c) The medical provider shall determine if a proposed provisionally certified interpreter has sufficient skill to be

provisionally certified to interpret in the required language.

(d) All interpreters shall provide proof of identity, and if certified, proof of certification. A certified interpreter

shall present to the medical provider his/her credential with photo identification. A provisionally certified

interpreter shall present to the medical provider his/her photo identification. The medical provider shall review

the credential and/or photo identification to verify the individual is the interpreter represented on the credential

or photo identification, and attach a copy of the credential and/or photo identification to the medical-legal exam

report or medical treatment appointment file.

(e) Interpreters shall inform the medical provider whether this is the first or subsequent interpretation during the

same one-hour medical treatment appointment time period or the same tw-three hour medical-legal exam time

period; the number of interpretations the interpreter has already done during the same time period; and the total

number of interpretations the interpreter is scheduled to do during the same time period. The medical provider

shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report or medical file,

Authority cited: Labor Code sections 133, 4050, 4060, 4600, 4600.3, 4614, 4616, 4620, 4621, 5307.3, 5710,

5811. Reference: Sections 3209.3, 3209.5, 3700, 4600, 4616, 4616.3, 4620, 4621, 5401; and Government Code

sections 11435.30, 11435.35, and 68562.


(a) The notice of hearing, deposition, medical-legal evaluation, or other setting shall include a statement

explaining the right to have a qualified certified interpreter present if the injured worker does not proficiently

speak or understand the English language. A party designated the responsibility to serve a notice shall include

the statement in the notice.

(b) The party or individual requiring interpreter services under the Article shall communicate the need to the

employer as soon as the need becomes known.

Authority cited: Sections 133, 4600, 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code; and Section 11435.60, Government

Code. Reference: Sections 4600, 4620, 4621, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code; and Sections 11435.60, 11513 and



272



(1) A qualified certified interpreter at hearings and depositions shall be paid the rates set forth in section 9937,

provided the billing requirements of section 9938 are met.

(2) Interpreters at hearings or depositions are entitled to one-half day or full day interpretation rates, as set forth

in section 9937, even if the interpretation time is for less time than a complete half-day or full day time period, as

those time periods are defined in sections 9930(f) and (e), respectively. Interpreter time for preparation of the

deponent immediately prior to the deposition shall be included in this time and paid accordingly.

(3) Interpreter Services Beyond Eight Hours or Reading Deposition to Deponent.

(A) Interpreter services at hearings or depositions which exceed 8 hours during a full day shall be paid pro-rata

for each hour worked, even if the interpretation is for less than one additional hour, based upon the full-day rate,

for the category of interpreter used. An interpreter shall not be paid more than one hour of pro-rata hourly, full-

day rate, for each hour worked beyond 8 hours in a full day.

(B) Interpreters reading the deponent the deposition prior to signing, or reading of prior volumes to the deponent

in preparation for a continued deposition, shall be paid the equivalent of one half day deposition rate for the

category of interpreter used, for the first hour of interpretation and thereafter in pro-rata in 15 minute increments.

In no case shall an interpreter be paid more than the one hour of the pro-rata hourly, for each hour of

interpretation for events under this subdivision.

(4) Cancellation fees. Unless the party responsible for providing for the interpreter notifies the interpreter of a

cancellation at least 24 hours prior to the time the service is to be provided, the interpreter shall be paid no less

than the minimum one-half day either the half or full day fee as set forth in section 9937. It shall be the

obligation of the injured worker to make every reasonable attempt to notify the employer in sufficient time of

any need to cancel the services of an interpreter.

(5) American Sign Language. Fees for interpreter services in American Sign Language at hearings shall be

governed by California Code of Regulations, title 8, Article 1.3, “Public Disability Accommodations”, Chapter

4.5, commencing with section 9708.1 et. seq.


(1) A qualified certified interpreter at medical treatment appointments or medical-legal evaluation shall be paid

the rates set forth in sections 9937, provided the billing requirements of section 9938 are met.


273

(2) The fees payable for interpreter services at medical treatment appointments or medical-legal evaluations shall

be paid based upon the rates set forth section 9937, and shall be computed based upon the total number of

interpretations at medical treatment appointments or medical-legal evaluations conducted during the same one-

two hour or two-three hour time period, respectively.

(3) Interpreters are entitled to the minimum on-two hour rate at medical treatment appointments and the

minimum of two-three hour rate at medical-legal evaluations. ***Half day 3-hours or Full Day (6-hours) for

all Medical Evaluations*** overtime after 6-hours

(4) Interpretations at second or successive medical treatment appointments or medical-legal evaluations that

overlap with the first interpretation time period, but are not completed during the first interpretation time period,

are considered separate, billable, time periods, to which the interpreter is entitled to bill an additional one-two

hour or two-three hour fee, respectively.

***Half day 3-hours or Full Day (6-hours) for all Medical Evaluations*** overtime after 6-hours

(5) If interpreting at the same medical treatment appointment or medical-legal evaluation exceeds the one-two

hour or two-three hour minimum time period, respectively, the interpreter shall be paid an additional amount,

pro-rata, in fifteen (15) 60 minute increments, for time interpreting beyond the minimum one two or two three

hour time period. ***Half day 3-hours or Full Day (6-hours) for all Medical Evaluations*** overtime after

6-hours

(6) Cancellation fees. Unless the party responsible for providing for an interpreter at a medical treatment

appointment or the medical-legal evaluation notifies the interpreter of a cancellation at least 24 hours prior to the

time the service is to be provided, the interpreter shall be entitled to be paid no less the equivalent of one two

hours of compensation for each medical treatment appointment cancelled and two three hours of compensation

for each medical-legal exam cancelled.*** Reserved time***

(c) Computation of Billing Fees at Multiple Hearings, Depositions, Medical Treatment Appointments, or

Medical-Legal Exams During the Same Time Period.

(1) Fees for interpreter services for the second and each successive interpretation during the same time period as

the initial interpretation shall each be billed at 75% of billing rate of the first interpretation, as set forth in section

9937. The total fee amount owed to the interpreter for all interpretations done during the same time period is the

total of the first interpretation fee plus 75% of that fee for each additional interpretation during the same time

period. The total fee amount shall then be divided by the number of interpretations done during the same time

period. The resulting dollar amount is the interpreter fee owed for each interpretation done during the same time

period. The interpreter shall bill each claims administrator based upon the number of interpretations done for


274

that claims administrator during the same time period. ***Fee paid to interpreters should be 100% from

beginning to end***

(2) If there is a fee agreement between an interpreter service provider and employer for a greater or lesser fee

than set forth in section 9937, as permitted by subdivision (d), the interpreter shall bill that employer based upon

the agreement. However that fee agreement shall not be used to compute the total fee amount referenced in

subdivision (c)(1) to be billed to employers with whom the interpreter service provider does not have a separate

fee agreement.

(d) Nothing in this section precludes an agreement for payment of interpreter services, made between the

interpreter or agency for interpreting services and the employer, regardless of whether or not such payment is

less than, or exceeds, the fees set forth in this section and section 9937.

(e) If the assignment is 30 miles one way or more from the Interpreters place of business to the location of

the interpreter assignment, mileage fees will be charged at the current federal rate.

Authority cited: Sections 133, 4600, 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code; and Sections 11435.25 and 11435.60,

Government Code. Reference: Sections 4600, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code; Sections 11138, 11435.15, 11435.20,

11435.25, 11435.30, 11435.55, 11435.40, 11435.55, 11435.60, and 68562, Government Code; California Code

of Regulations, Title 8, Article 1.3, Chapter 4.5, Sections 9708.1 et. seq.


The following billing codes and rates shall be used to compute billing for interpreter services, except for fee rates

reached by mutual agreement or excluded, as set forth in sections 9936 (a)(5) and (d).

HEARINGS AND DEPOSITIONS

Dollar Rate

First Hearing During Time

Slot

Additional

Hearing(s)

In Same Time Slot



Hearing by a certified interpreter for


Half day = $255.395.00

Full day = $448.490.00

More than 8 hrs., 6 hours for

depositions pro-rate added

hours, in 1 hour increments.

$191.25 225 each

$336.400.00 each



Hearing by a provisionally certified


depositions.

Half day = $141.00

Full day = $232.00

More than 8 hrs. pro-rate added


$105.75

$174.00



Half day = $255.395.00

Full day = $448.490.00

$191.225.00 each

$336.400.00 each






275




depositions.

More than 8 hrs., 6 hours for

depositions pro-rate added hours

in 1 hour increments.







Half day = $141.00

Full day = $232.00



$105.75

$174.00


A conference by a certified


depositions.

Half day = $255.395.00

Full day = $448.490.00

More than 8 hrs.,6 hours for

depositions pro-rate added hours

in one-hour increments.

$191.25 225 each

$336.400.00 each


A conference by a provisionally


depositions.

Half day = $141.00

Full day = $232.00



increments.

$105.75

$174.00




depositions. Includes time for

deponent preparation immediately

prior to deposition.

Half day = $255.395.00

Full day = $448.490.00

Exceeding 8 hrs. in one day, 6

hours for depositions pro-rata

thereafter in one-hour

increments.

N/A




hearings and depositions. Includes

time for deponent preparation

immediately prior to deposition.

Half-day = $141.00

Full day = $232.00



increments.

N/A






Minimum one hour pro-rata half

day rate, based upon the full day

rate of $448.490 Pro-rata

thereafter, in 15 30 minute

increments.

N/A


276






deposition.

Minimum on- hour pro-rata rate,


$232.00. Pro-rata thereafter, in


MEDICAL TREATMENT

APPOINTMENT

Dollar Rate


Time Slot

Additional

Appointment(s)

In Same Time Slot





$86.50 95 per hr., with one-two


thereafter, in 15 60 minute

increments.

$64.88 95 per hr., with

On three-hour

minimum.

Pro-rata thereafter,

in

15 ½ day 3-hours/

Full day 6 hours





legal exams.

$57.75 45 per hr., with one-hour

minimum. Pro-rata thereafter, in



One-hour minimum.



MEDICAL-LEGAL

EVALUATION

Dollar Rate

First Exam During Time Slot

Additional Exam(s)

In Same Time Slot



legal evaluation, follow-up medical-

legal evaluation, or an examination

by the physician to which an injured

worker submits at the request of the

claims administrator, the

administrative director, or the appeals

board, by a certified interpreter for



$86.50 95 per hr., with two-3

hour minimum of $173.180.00.

Pro-rata hourly rate thereafter, in

15 60 minute increments.

$64.88 95 per hr.,

with

Twto-Three hour

minimum of

$129.75.285.00

Pro-rata rate

thereafter, in 15 ½

day (3-hours or Full

day (6hours)



$57.75 45 per hr., with two-hour

minimum of $115.50.90 Pro-


Two-hour minimum of


277

legal evaluation, or follow-up

medical-legal evaluation, or an

examination by the physician to

which an injured worker submits at

the request of the claims

administrator, the administrative

director, or the appeals board, by a




rata hourly rate thereafter, in 15

minute increments.

$86.62. Pro-rata

hourly.

Rate thereafter, in


Authority cited: Sections 133, 4607.2(b), 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code. Reference: Sections 4600,




(a) Every bill submitted to the employer for services provided under this Article shall include an itemization of

services provided and the charge associated for each service. The bill must contain :

(1) The name of the interpreter;

(2) The interpreter’s certification number, if any, and name of the organization that certified the interpreter;

(3) The name of the injured worker;

(4) The claim number;

(5) The date the interpreting service under this Article was rendered;

(6) The type of interpreter service provided, i.e. certified interpreter for administrative hearings and depositions;

provisionally certified interpreter for administrative hearings and depositions; certified interpreter for medical

treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations; or provisionally certified interpreter for medical treatment

appointments and medical-legal evaluations;

(7) The language interpreted;

(8) The billing code for the service as set forth in section 99378;

(9) The time spent on the interpretation;


278

(10) If there was more than one qualifying interpretation during the same time period, the total number of such

interpretations shall be stated on each bill sent to each employer billed for that time period;

(11) The amount billed to the particular employer to whom the bill is directed; and

(12) A declaration by the interpreter stating: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in

this report and its attachments, if any, is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” The

declaration shall be signed and dated by the interpreter and indicate the county and state in which it was signed.

(b) Proof of certification may be requested by the employer and shall be provided by the certified interpreter for

the purposes of hearings and depositions if the interpreter is not listed on the State Personnel Board webpage at

http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/Interpreterlisting or the California Courts webpage at http://courts.ca.gov/programs-

interpreters.htm.

(c) Proof of certification may be requested by the employer and shall be provided by the certified interpreter for

the purposes of medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluations if the interpreter is not listed in

the CCHI; National Board website directory; the California Courts webpage at http://courts.ca.gov/programs-

interpreters.htm. or listed as a medical interpreter by CALHR as appears on the State Personnel Board Website at

http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/InterpreterListing.

Authority cited: Sections 133, 4600, 4603.2, 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code. Reference: Sections 4600,



§9939. Time for Payment; Effective Date.

(a) A bill for interpreter services which constitutes a medical treatment service under Labor Code section 4600

shall be paid or contested by the employer under the timeframes and procedures set forth in Labor Code section

4603.2 and California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 9792.5.4 through 9792.5.15.

(b) A bill for interpreter services which constitutes a medical-legal expense as defined in California Code of

Regulations, title 8, section 9793(h) shall be paid or contested by the employer under the timeframes and

procedures set forth in Labor Code section 4622 and section 9794 of these regulations.

(c) All bills for interpreter services that are not medical treatment or medical-legal expenses shall be paid under

the timeframes and procedures required by subdivision (b) of this section.

Authority cited: Sections 133, 4600, 4603.2, 4622, 5307.3, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code. Reference: Sections

4600, 4603.2, 4603.6, 4620, 4621, 4622, 5710 and 5811, Labor Code; and Sections 68562 and 11513,

Government Code; California Code of Regulations, Title 8, sections 9792.5.4 through 9792.5.15, 9793 and 9794.







279

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Marisol V. Ugas April 13, 2018


As a certified interpreter working in Workers Comp. I have many concerns with the proposed regs as

they stand. I believe many things haven’t been considered and hope these comments help in that matter.






9931.


(c)(3):


















280


MPN.






(f) Half-Day means:









workers.














281



interpreter”.









injured worker.



















282






















Overburdening the Judges and doctors with administrative requirements that are practically impossible to

comply with.

It does not allow for the difference between an individual working/billing the employer directly, and an

interpreter working through an agency (LSP).









283




What if an LSP has concurrent events at the same time at various WCABs. Does the LSP have to prorate

their invoices? Must they submit sworn statements?






Free-lance interpreters are independent contractors, not employees! A fee regulation is permissible under

Labor Code rules requiring a uniform pay, however, where does the State, Insurance Carrier or Employer

have the authority to control their work schedules? For instance, even if MPN doctors have their set fees,

the State does not dictate how many patients a day they can see nor are they asked to prorate their fees if

they happen to get an last minute extra patient in the same time frame.













Here are some:



284


interpreting assignment doesn’t end when the event ends. Thereafter this assignment must be

laboriously invoiced, served, appealed, frequently subjected to the costs and delays of IBR.

Sometimes interpreters go for years without seeing a single dollar of pay for a simple WCAB

appearance they did. Court interpreters get their check at the end of the month.



















many area.

Other remarks:






____________________________________________________________________________________


285

Angie Birchfield – Unit Chair IGA April 13, 2018

Johanna Valle – Vice Chair IGA

Lissett Samaniego – IGA Secretary

David Smugar, Certified Healthcare Interpreter

I am a member of IGA, and would like to add the following:

I work with quite a number of doctors who require certification; they add the certification number to the

claimant’s case.

I have been at a doctor’s office, and the next patient to be seen has a “provisionally qualified” interpreter

waiting.

The doctor rejects that interpreter due to lack of certification, and uses me instead because I am certified.

This way, the insurance company pays for two interpreters, thereby wasting money.

There is no one governing how interpreters are to be “provisionally” qualified.

Agencies are using people who have no training and minimal or no knowledge of interpretation

procedures and/or medical terminology.

I encountered a new interpreter in a waiting room on his first appointment who was studying terms such

as “ankle, wrist, eyebrow” etc. in Spanish.

This is unfair to the injured worker, as they deserve the right to have an accurate interpretation performed

by a trained, qualified, and tested interpreter.

I have had some patients who told me they sent noncertified interpreters home because they could see

that they were not at all qualified, the interpretation was very poor and were omitting much of what the

doctor was saying.

These patients rescheduled their appointments; again, money wasted by the insurance companies.

There are interpreting agencies that avoid calling certified interpreters altogether because they can make

more money by paying so-called provisionally qualified individuals less. The agency can charge the

same to their clients, and keep more of the money in their pocket. So greed is taking over and the injured

worker is the one who often loses.

Workers Compensation cases are legal cases.

One agency told me they only send provisionally certified interpreters to do medical evaluations. These

can be thrown out by an attorney, stating that the interpretation might have been inaccurate due to the fact

that the interpreter was not certified.

Again, money is being wasted in the process.

I asked if they followed the rule of asking three certified interpreters first.


286

They said no, flat out no.

Who is supervising this type of business practice?

No one.

The information below is from The Interpreters Guild of America, of which I am an active member.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On behalf of the Interpreters Guild of America, we thank you for the opportunity to continue to

communicate directly with you and other DIR personnel and we are happy to share our input and

concerns as subject matter experts in interpreter matters. As such, let us underscore the most important

issues that need to be addressed and clarified in upcoming rulemaking for interpreters.

First and foremost, the rates proposed in the fee schedule:

Although the rates presently suggested in the DIR proposal are slightly above the US Courts per diem

rates, those per diem rates are designed solely as direct compensation to independent contractor

interpreters working in a single courthouse location. By contrast, the majority of interpreters in Workers

Compensation are booked through language service agencies (LSPs) and work outside the WCAB

locations in discovery and medical assignments. Therefore, a Workers’ Comp fee schedule must make

some provision for a premium or admin fee for the intermediary language agency. Otherwise, the

independent interpreter will be offered substandard rates, which will affect injured workers and their right

to adequate interpreting services. Lowering the compensation to individual interpreters also fosters the

use of non-certified people willing to work for substandard fees. One already sees that being prevalent in

deposition preparations, transcript reviews and documents signing, where the oversight provided under

AB2370 is absent.

We strongly suggest making the fee schedule a true indicator of the fees that go to the individual

interpreter doing the work, rather than a ceiling for the language agencies’ (LSP’s) billing. The

agencies’ (LSP’s) administrative costs and profit can be addressed separately by those entities that

directly contract the LSPs and are most reliant on their services. The agencies (LSPs) serve a useful

function to law firms, medical providers and insurance carriers. They offer them one stop shopping for

interpreting services. Therefore, let the LSPs compete on the basis of their service pricing and

administrative reliability, rather than how much they can squeeze out of interpreters or how little they can

pay non-certified students.

Additionally, IGA wishes to reiterate our position that the 3.5 and 8 hour / half and full day clause is

unworkable outside of single location, WCAB trials and hearings. Working a 3½ hours half-day simply

does not allow sufficient time for an interpreter in the field to complete 2 assignments on a given day.

This is due to scheduling and the distances interpreters must travel for each assignment. For the most

part, morning depositions begin between 9:30am-10 am and end at 12pm. Afternoon depositions begin

between 1pm-1:30pm and end at 5pm. Unlike working at the WCAB or in a courthouse, the interpreter in


287

a deposition works alone, not in an interpreting team as they do in California Superior Court and does not

cover multiple assignments in one location.

IGA believes that interpreters are the ones best suited to establishing the working conditions and

protocols in our profession since we are independent contractors and these are policies that have been in

place for the last 30 years.

Regarding the use of non-certified interpreters, IGA maintains that neither an administrative law judge,

nor an insurance adjuster, nor a medical doctor have the qualifications to provisionally certify an

interpreter. We firmly believe that there are enough certified interpreters in California to cover all

assignments.

That being said, we can also agree that a reliable and verifiable process for finding available certified

interpreters is needed. However, the currently proposed three-call provision is unworkable. How would

the DIR enforce the requirement of contacting three interpreters before someone can be provisionally

certified? Will there be an “interpreter” department at the DIR to handle compliance?

Given that there are searchable online databases of certified interpreters, IGA can offer its “online”

system that provides for searching for available, certified interpreters in locations across the state. IGA

would be happy to work with the DIR on the feasibility of using our statewide, searchable database for

interpreter availability. With this system, if no certified interpreter were available, there would be a

computer screen-shot to confirm it.

With respect to a uniform interpreter rate statewide, IGA never suggested that rates should be equal

throughout California.

With regard to the provisional qualification of a non-certified individual, we believe that it should adhere

to the State Court rules for provisional qualification. This includes confirmation that the individual has

taken the written component of either the state interpreter exam or the medical certification exams. They

must also show proof that they are actively preparing for and taking the oral performance exam. The

individual is given provisional qualification for not more than 2 years after which they are no longer

eligible to continue to interpret if they have not successfully passed the exam.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Izabel E. T. de V. Souza, M.Ed, CMI-S, Ph.D. April 13, 2018

(Spanish, Portuguese, French)


288

The proposed changes are nothing but an attempt to cut in half the interpreters' salaries. You will be

replacing certified professional interpreters with semi-bilingual individuals who are simply not

qualified to do the job. There is no protection of patient safety or patient's rights here to obtain the

services of a qualified professional. Healthcare providers are NOT qualified to assess an individual's

ability to interpret accurately. Miscommunication may cause adverse health effects and these changes

will cause a deterrioration of the quality of the linguistic services provided to patients in California.

Changes need to be made to ensure quality, not to errode it. Providers will be making many treatment

errors due to poor communication.

The definition of a Provisional Interpreter - (when a certified interpreter is not available)

monolingual medical providers and hearing officers get to decide who is qualified to interpret based

on their own criteria.

Pay for provisional v. certified interpreters - Provisional interpreters get paid less than half what

certified interpreters get paid. This is supposed to be an incentive for them to get certified. However,

given the proposed watered down requirements to secure certified interpreters, we anticipate an even

greater increase in the number of jobs going to “provisionals” who will actually have less incentive to

become certified.

Insurance companies will have complete control over who gets to send the interpreter - Insurance

companies will only have to try to hire a certified interpreter three times before sending in a

provisional interpreter. California certified interpreters have been battling agencies and companies

willing to send in non-certified interpreters, when current regulations require interpreters be certified.

Interpreters minimum charge for medical appointments will be reduced from two hours to one hour.

The logistics of this change seem undoable. How will an interpreter handle it if he shows up at

9:00am but then has to wait until 9:45am to be seen? If he also has a 10:15am or 10:30am assignment

nearby, now he either has to leave "early" from the appointment that ran late or arrive late to the

second appointment. Interpreters will get paid less and be able to book fewer appointments.

Interpreters will have to pro-rate their services - Interpreters can charge 100% for the first

appointment in a venue, then 75% for each subsequent one. No other professionals in these settings

are asked to pro-rate their time based on patients seen per venue. This is in reality the same as asking

for volume discounts on commodities, not paying a trained professional a fee for their service.

Multiple parties will track interpreter time with no clear reporting mechanism - doctors, lawyer and

judges will all be required to track the number of appointments an interpreter takes in a given time

period, which might be at an hourly or half-day rate. This is a logistical nightmare in the making and

won't justify whatever savings may be gained.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Emma Williams April 13, 2018

I am writing to let you know that the new laws are awful. An interpreter is highly skilled and becoming

certified is no easy task. Punishing someone for being certified by making it easier to higher a less skilled

interpreter is unjust to both the interpreter and the client, who isn't getting the information they need


289

properly relayed. Also, making it so that employers can pay interpreters less is incentivising interpreters

to not do their best work. This means that people who do not speak English are being discriminated

against because this law says that you don't value what they have to say. This can also be dangerous in a

medical situation. Interpreting is a difficult and highly skilled job and needs to be treated as such. People

work very hard to get certified and to learn laws and procedures associated with interpreting so that they

don't make mistakes that could be catastrophic. Making it easier for someone to hire a noncertified

interpreter is bad for everyone involved because it leads to the problem that an interpreter is supposed to

solve: a breakdown in communication.

Interpreters do difficult and important work and deserve to be compensated fairly and clients deserve a

certified interpreter that they know is representing them accurately. Anything less is discrimination

against people who don't speak English.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Carlos Chang April 13, 2018

Certified Medical Interpreter – Spanish

1. §9936. Computation of Fees. (2) “Interpreter time for preparation of the deponent immediately

prior to the deposition shall be included in this time and paid accordingly.”

Government Code Title 2, Division 3, Part 1, Chapter 4.5, Article 8, Section 11435.65 (b) “The

interpreter shall not have had any involvement in the issues of the case prior to the hearing.”

This proposed section of your new regulations goes directly against what is already law, you cannot use

an interpreter prior to the hearing or deposition and be the same interpreter in the hearing or deposition.

Also the interpreter at the hearing or deposition cannot have been providing interpreting services at prior

medical appointments.

2. §9767.3 (c) (3) “ancillary service provider file shall have only the following six columns.”

In the paragraph there is only 1-5, missing number 6.

3. §9930. Definitions

(g) You define what a hearing is but you do not define what a “Deposition” is.

4. In §9932 (a) “interpreter service provider”. The term is introduced into these new regulations but

the definition of what an interpreter service provider is not included in §9930. Definitions.

5. §9932 (c) Is about expanding the search to 45 miles or 90 minutes driving in rural or sparsely

populated areas. How will these regions be defined? The Federal Government uses two major

definitions of “rural”, along with many variants that are also available. One is produced by the U.S.

Census Bureau and the other by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Office of Rural


290

Health Policy (FORHP) uses components of each definition when determining a classification for a

geographic region. (source: https://www.hrsa.gov/rural-health/about-us/definition/index.html)

How will the state of California DWC define a “rural” area?

6. If you book an interpreter at a Hearing or Deposition for a half-day session you contract that

interpreter to be committed to the 3.5 hours as defined in §9930 (f)(2). Once that time period had

transpired the interpreter is no longer contractually obligated to stay even if the event is to be extended.

So if the interpreter has another appointment to go to they are contractually free to leave at the 3.5 hour

mark. A second session might have to be programmed in order to complete the deposition. Then there is

§9936(b)(3) which stated that interpreters are entitled to the minimum one-hour rate at medical treatment

appointments and the minimum two-hour rate at medical-legal evaluations. So this means that certified

medical interpreters are only contracted for one-hour at medical appointments. Contractually the

interpreter can leave after one hour has transpired even if the medical provider (Doctor) has not seen the

injured worker. Just like the interpreter that is booked for a half day event of 3.5 hours, medical

appointment interpreters can leave after 1 contracted hour has transpired. And then a second appointment

might have to be programmed in order to complete the medical visit. You can avoid all of this by

returning medical appointments to a 2 hour minimum thereby giving the injured worker and the medical

provider sufficient time to be seen and treated.

7. I have a certificate of Continuing Education for Evaluating California Injured Workers: Qualified

Medical Evaluators (QME) offered online by the DWC. In this course you teach that the QME doctor is

“essentially an expert witness in the workers’ compensation case. Judges, claims administrators,

attorneys rely on the report to resolve a claim. The QME is an essential part of the workers’

compensation system”. If the QME is truly of high importance and the DWC teaches that, then

importance should be given to interpreting services at a medical-legal evaluation and change the

contracted 2 hour minimum to reflect the importance of a QME. It is unjustifiable that an expert witness

would be rushed to complete such a valuable evaluation just to meet the minimum 2 hours that interpreter

services is requested and contracted. Just as a hearing or deposition has high importance and is allotted

3.5 minimum hours to complete that valuable event, so too should a medical-legal evaluation

appointment be contracted to a minimum of 3.5 hours and 8 hours for a more extensive QME

psychological evaluation. I ask that you weigh the complexity and value of a medical-legal evaluation

(QME/AME/IME) appointment and change the minimum hours to be reflective of a half-day or full-day

rate for medical-legal evaluations.

8. §9936(a)(3)(A) Interpreter services at hearings or depositions which exceed 8 hours during a full

day shall be paid pro-rata for each hour worked, even if the interpretation is for less than one additional

hour.

In this section the DWC establishes that an interpreter is to round up to one additional hour, so the DWC

MUST be fair and MUST also establish that all other appointments that go beyond the minimum hours be

paid one additional hour. It would be greatly disadvantageous for the DWC to show favoritism for full-

day interpretations to be paid one additional hour even if the interpretation is for less than one additional


291

hour while the rest of interpreters have to use a 15 minute increment billing computation when the

appointment goes beyond the minimum hours.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Joshua Goldsmith April 13, 2018

EU and UN Accredited Conference Interpreter

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed Interpreter Fee Schedule.

The proposed changes to the current fee schedule are nothing short of alarming and will set a terrible

precedent for interpreters inside California, around the country, and worldwide.

I wish to echo the comments of the San Diego Certified Interpreters Network, which I reproduce below:

"On behalf of the San Diego Certified Medical Interpreters Network (SDCMIN), the purpose of this letter

is to respond to the proposed changes in the interpreter fee schedule and regulations for 2018. Our group

met on April 7 to discuss the proposed changes. We aim to respond with a coherent voice as to what we

believe are the most problematic portions of the proposed changes. The most important issue is the

proposal to allow provisionally certified interpreters in lieu of actual certified interpreters for medical and

medical/legal appointments, as well as the vague definition of what a qualified interpreter means in this

context.

We collectively object to the use of any person who is not a bonafide certified interpreter to provide

language services in any workers compensation setting.


mandatory testing and obtain their certification in a timeframe not to exceed six months

If they can demonstrate that they are in the process of pursuing certification, and the search for a certified

interpreter has been exhausted and documented, only then an exception could be made.

It should be noted, that medical-legal evaluations are scheduled well in advance, usually 60 days prior to

the appointment. There is absolutely no reason a certified interpreter cannot be scheduled within that

timeframe. We can also point out that treatment visits are also scheduled days or usually weeks in

advance, hence there is no valid excuse for sending a provisionally certified person to do the job of a

certified interpreter. The brokers or agencies very often choose to wait until the day before to assign the

appointments. These are the facts and they cannot be ignored.

For our profession, certification of interpreters has become the industry's best way to ensure the safety of

patients with accurate interpretation as well as adherence to a strict code of ethics that certified


292

interpreters are subject to. The use of provisionally certified interpreters is comparable to allowing

provisional certification for doctors to treat patients on an emergency basis, or lawyers being allowed to

practice before passing their bar exam for expediency’s sake.


language services in worker’s compensation medical/legal appointments, which can at the very least

cause incorrect reporting of injuries and symptoms in new claims with subsequent refusal to treat injured

body parts or poor outcomes from treatment, and in the extreme could lead to medical malpractice or

even cause death. A good way to avoid litigation for LEP (Limited English Proficiency) claimants in the

system is to start with the highest quality language services available.


1. The proposed rate is a one-hour minimum. This is unrealistic. Most doctors, insurance companies and

interpreting agencies require us to reserve a two-hour window. We must therefore insist on the current

rule of a two-hour minimum to remain.

2. There is no language about the percentage of the interpreter’s fee that interpreting agencies charge as a

commission. As it stands today, they take 30-50%. No one is even mentioning the disproportionate ratio

of the broker's commission versus the interpreter's fee. We the interpreters are the service providers, not

the agencies or brokers.

3. There is a proposed lower rate for subsequent assignments in the same location, leaving one to assume

that is the actual rate being offered ($64.31/hour); Does the medical provider also provide a discount if he

sees more than one patient in the same time slot? We see no rational argument for a reduction in rates for

this scenario.

4. There is no allowance for parking fees or for mileage, which, especially for interpreters who live and

work in rural areas, in all fairness must be taken into consideration. One of our biggest expenses is the

wear and tear on our vehicles, and we spend a lot of unpaid time behind the wheel in order to get to all

the different locations.

We assume that the goal is to ensure that LEP claimants are given equal access to quality medical care

through the services of interpreters.

It has become clear that to be an appropriate provider of those services, any individual, in addition to

being demonstrably bilingual, must have medical terminology training, understand cultural differences,

as well as operate by a code of ethics whereby both patients and medical providers are served with the

highest level of skill, professionalism, discretion and respect.


293

We are your greatest assets in terms of cost containment, fairness and transparency when it comes to

serving the LEP population. Please keep this in mind when you write your final fee schedule and

regulations."

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Edith R Borbon, MS Ed April 13, 2018

Highly Qualified Interpreter and

Adjunct Professor of Filipino/Tagalog

I write to enlighten you over the situation that currently faces interpreters in general in the hopes that you

will reconsider your proposed changes specifically as they pertain to fees and hours.

For those based in metropolitan areas, the high cost of living (e.g. gas/fuel, rent/mortgage, food, clothes)

and the travel involved especially during commute hours are big factors in the fees that certified and

qualified interpreters charge.

And do note that as independent contractors, we pay taxes and Social Security from the seemingly high

rates that we charge. Further, we do not get employee benefits such as healthcare coverage and

pension/retirement; we have to cover these on our own.

In addition, our vehicles (that we heavily depend on to get us to and from assignments) need to be

properly serviced and maintained — and these do not come cheap. For myself, I cover about 20,000

miles a year just around the San Francisco Bay Area with service at 7,500 mile intervals.

I would like to point out that being an interpreter is not an easy job. It is not just a matter of knowing the

languages involved. Besides having a high proficiency in two (or more) languages, cultural sensitivity is

a must. And depending on the type of assignment, we need to maintain professional distance given some

emotionally and psychologically charged sessions.

I have enumerated all the above factors and provided a brief explanation for each in order to inform you

of the reality of the situation that interpreters face.

I am not certain how much interpreting agencies charge on top of what interpreters are paid; maybe that

needs looking into and perhaps even regulated.

Thank you, I sincerely hope that we can all work together and provide the indispensable service that

injured workers need in getting the treatment due them.


294

____________________________________________________________________________________

Juan Carlos Morales April 13, 2018

Medical and Legal Interpreting Instructor

I have been an instructor for Medical, Administrative and Court interpreters for the past 23 years.

Despite of using some of the best tools available, and belonging to the Faculty of the most successful

interpreting school in the state, a very small percentage of students are able to obtain their certification.

This is because of the rigorous standards set by the Certifying agencies. Just like it is for any other

profession, the certification process for language interpreters is complex and very strict. The standards set

by the certification warrant the certified interpreter to perform his/her duties properly.

The proposition of having someone provisionally certify an individual to interpret is so wrong in its face,

it would be the equivalent to certifying a butcher to perform a surgical procedure just because he can hold

a knife…


Legal Evaluations:



Reason:


whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter?

This is simply absurd. The interpreter profession has already provided the DIR/DWC with a work-

around: on May 20, 2016, a document titled Provisionally Certified Interpreter Appeal, signed by 14

interpreting associations, nation-wide, was sent to AD Parisotto and Staff Cousel Hersh warning about

the dangers and recommending an alternative to this misguided notion.

Because this is a very dangerous proposal that risks trampling on the limited English proficient injured


Rights Act of 1964.


295

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Teri Bullington April 13, 2018

Certified Court Spanish Interpreter

I would like to express my disagreement with the fee schedule that is being proposed for interpreters. I

am a Certified Court / Medical Spanish Interpreter. I work in the Superior Courts as an Independent

Contractor as well as interpret for many types of legal appointments and Workers' Compensation cases.

The Workers' Comp cases include depositions, hearings at the WC Appeals Board, QME, AME, IME,

Psychiatric appointments as well as follow up medical appointments.

The proposed fee schedule of $255 for a 3.5 hour minimum and $448 for an 8 hour minimum is a

disgraceful and unacceptable compensation for the type of work that interpreters perform.

The DWCF is telling interpreters that they will only be earning $72.35 an hour, if the interpreter works a

half day, which the DWC believes is anytime between 8:30 AM and 12 PM. Perhaps the Appeals Board

has that type of a work schedule, but in the real world of interpreting, appointments and depositions have

much different start and end times.

For example, the starting time for a Deposition and Medical appointments vary from assignment to

assignment. They start at 9 am, 10 am, 11 am, 12 pm, 1 pm 2 pm etc.. AND when they do take place, the

duration is unknown. Some assignments last only 2 hours but others last for more than 5 hours

We, as professional certified interpreters, arrange our own schedules. We do not simply work from 8:30 -

12 and 1:30 -5 We inquire as to the possible duration of an assignment so that we can finish, or let the

attorneys know that we have another assignment to go to later in the day. We should not be obligated to

be available for 3.5 hours and only be paid $255.

We are professionals and Interpreting is our career. We have passed a difficult exam to become Court

Certified by the Judicial Council of California. In order to maintain our certification we must attend and

pay for continuing education. These courses are not cheap and some require traveling and lodging in

order to take them.

We, as certified court/medical interpreters, deserve the right to be able to charge market rates and earn a

decent and fair income. A fee of less than $100 an hour is not acceptable., and we should have the right to

negotiate a fee that is reasonable.


296

Some interpreters travel over an hour or more to be able to interpret at an assignment. Therefore, travel

time and mileage also need to be compensated for. We do not see travel time and mileage being

compensated for in the proposed fee schedule.

I read the entire proposal and I agree with my other colleagues who have submitted comments. Some of

the responses are more detailed, and I feel that the proposal is regulating and controlling too many

aspects of how an interpreter should be permitted to work and operate. If these fees are implemented the

DWC should expect to see more difficulty to find interpreters who are willing to accept assignment for

the disgraceful fees that you are proposing.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Helen S. Ruiz April 12, 2018

State Certified Court Reporter

We have been a Language Service Provider for over 30 years in the State of California. The proposed fee

schedule and conditions have many flaws in understanding how an efficient LSP works.

Please refer to the comments made by the CWCIA in relation to this proposed fee schedule and they did a

great job on addressing several important points that should be considered.

Among others, the two that should also be addressed are:

1. Section 9936. Computation of Fees (d) needs to specifically give interpreters and agencies the ability

to negotiate all terms and conditions, not just payment, such as the duration of half day/full day, which

the DWC proposal set at 3.5 hours and up to 8 hours respectively, and which differs from the standard

practice in several areas of California.

2. Section 9930(a) (Definitions, "Certified interpreter for hearings and depositions") needs to specify that

only interpreters on the State Personnel Board website or on the California Courts website are allowed to

interpret at administrative hearings and depositions.

--

Also please consider the fact that among agencies we also have the expenditures of office rising rent,

health insurance and workers compensation, liability insurance etc. for our office staff.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Elva Reyes-Espinosa April 12, 2018

CA Court Certified and Administrative Hearing Certified Interpreter


297

I have added my name to the proposed suggestions for the current proposal. Additionally, I would like to

say that these regulations will severely restrict my ability to earn a living as interpreter in the SF Bay

Area. Additionally, I would like to point out that this is one of the few professions where I see a high

number of Latina Women professionals. I myself hold a BA from UC Berkeley and have worked

incredibly hard to obtain my two certifications. These regulations will undercut a whole industry where

many Latinas have been able to not only become professionals but also entrepreneurs. If the State of CA

would like to make us employees similar to Superior Court that is one thing but instead we are being told

when to work, where to work and how much to charge. There is reason we are considered independent

contractors. I/we are not completely against changes but reality of what is being proposed is to wipe out

an entire group of middle class professionals.






9931.


(c)(3):

















298



MPN.






(f) Half-Day means:









workers.

** A definition for Language Service Provideris urged!





(c)(2) the following modification is suggested: “the party noticing the deposition eventshall select and








299



interpreter”.









injured worker.

If an employer, through its MPN cannot produce a certified interpreter, the option to select and

arrangean interpreter should go to the injured worker, with all the required notifications to the employer.















300


























· It does not allow for the difference between an individual working/billing the employer directly, and








301



· What if an interpreter is covering a hearing for one LSP and an emergency arises where they have to

cover a case for another LSP? Why should the first LSP take a pay cut? Should the interpreter then refuse

to help in that additional case, delaying the process needlessly?

























Here are some:


302


























Other remarks:







303

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Raymond Chon April 12, 2018

Ace Translation Service


(a) “Certified interpreter for hearings and depositions” is an individual listed as a certified interpreter

for administrative hearings, ( delete medical examinations) , or state court proceedings on the State

Personnel Board website at http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/Interpreterlisting.( add : Certified medical interpreter

can cover hearings and depostions as well) reason being : cchi or national board certified interpreter as

healthcare interpreters cover medical treatments or med legal evaluation. Healthcare industry is different

from workers comp field. Same thing . State certified medical interpreters can cover hearings and

depositions or is listed as a certified interpreter on the California Courts website at

http://courts.ca.gov/programs-interpreters.htm in one of the following languages: Spanish, Tagalog,

Arabic, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Vietnamese, American Sign Language, Eastern

Armenian, Western Armenian, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Punjabi, or Russian, or other languages

authorized or designated pursuant to Government Code sections 11435.40, 11435.35, and 68562.


(c) Depositions.

(2) This subdivision shall include the preparation of the deponent (delete. Immediately) ( reason being :

sometimes applicant ‘ s attorney wants prep sometime in advance like one or two days before etc.

attorney and client privilege is involved in the prep ) prior to the deposition, the reading of a deposition

transcript to the deponent prior to signing, and the reading of prior volumes of deposition transcript in

preparation for continuation of a deposition.




interpreters in that language available at reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area, the

injured worker must select and utilize an individual interpreter or interpreter service from the ancillary

service provider list. If individual interpreters are certified as defined in section 9930 (b) ( delete isted

by the interpreter provider service) ( reason being : insurance carrier MPN is not likely to list individual

interpreters on their preferred vendor lists ) , the injured worker shall choose which certified interpreter

to use. All interpreters provided through an MPN ancillary interpreting service provider must be certified




304

as defined in section 9930(b). The employer shall arrange for the presence of the employee-selected




(3) Interpreters are entitled to the minimum two hour rate ( to be replaced one-hour rate) at medical

treatment appointments and the minimum of two-hour rate at medical-legal evaluations.

(4) Interpretations at second or successive medical treatment appointments or medical-legal evaluations

that overlap with the first interpretation time period, but are not completed during the first interpretation

time period, are considered separate, billable, time periods, to which the interpreter is entitled to bill an

additional one-hour or two-hour fee, respectively.

(5) If interpreting at the same medical treatment appointment or medical-legal evaluation exceeds the (to

be deletedone-hour or) two-hour minimum time period, respectively, the interpreter shall be paid an

additional amount, pro-rata, in fifteen (15) minute increments, for time interpreting beyond the minimum

( to be deletedone or) two hour time period.







Minimum two hour ( to be

deletedone hour) pro-rata rate,


$448. Pro-rata thereafter, in 15

minute increments.

N/A






deposition.

Minimum two hour( to be

deletedon- hour) pro-rata rate,


$232.00. Pro-rata thereafter, in


MEDICAL TREATMENT

APPOINTMENT

Dollar Rate


Time Slot

Additional

Appointment(s)

In Same Time Slot





$86.50 per hr., with( two hour

minimum. one-hour

minimum.to be deleted) Pro-


Two hour ( to be

deletedOne-hour)

minimum.


305

rata thereafter, in 15 minute

increments.







legal exams.

$57.75 per hr., with ( two hour

deleteone-hour) minimum. Pro-

rata thereafter, in 15 minute

increments.


Two hour ( to be

deletedOne-hour)

minimum.



Guadalupe A. Manriquez April 12, 2018

LMIS, INC.

Lucy Blakney

LGB Interpreting April 13, 2018














minimums for treatment appointments in offices where medical providers do not service

a lot of workers’ compensation cases will lead certified interpreters to decline said appointments,

allowing for “provisionally” certified interpreters as defined in this proposal to benefit the most, to the

detriment of the LEP injured worker.








306








(c)(3):



providers) should say INTERPRETER SERVICE PROVIDER (ISP) and not individual certified

interpreters.

In 2015 and 2016, CWCIA presented to the DWC Director ample evidence of systematic violations of

the certification requirement by these networks. If an employer chooses to have an MPN for

ancillary/interpreting services, they should be required to prove the existence of CERTIFIED individuals

in their network by listing individual interpreters, not just LSPs. There should also be an entry

mechanism for individuals and not only mega-corporations to be able to enroll and participate in it.










MPN.

REASON:



307

providing services outside the MPN. The way things are currently, interpreters are the last to









depositions”

Reason:





CHANGE TO 7 HOURS

Reason:




at our meeting of November 2016, interpreting is a unique, cognitively demanding activity that

requires breaks.


REQUIRED





to 12:00 pm AND 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm


308

Reason:








Reason:





The fees contained in the proposal will not be the Under §9930. Definitions:



Reason:

Because medical-legal consultations also exist Under §9930.

Definitions: There is no allowance for MILEAGE AND TRAVEL TIME

Reason:




Reason:


reimbursed no less than the minimum fee unless notified of a cancelation at least 24 hours


309

prior to the time the service is to be provider. Unexpected cancellations are out of the interpreter’s

control.


(c)(2) the following modification is suggested: “the party noticing the deposition event shall select

and arrange for the presence of an interpreter”. It seems cumbersome and illogical to ask defense to be

in charge of scheduling meetings between applicant attorneys and injured workers as to when, where

and how the deposition review will take place.



interpreter”.






Reason:


injured worker has selected and arranged for the presence of the interpreter, so that the employer

has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter. THIS MAKES NO SENSE, it is

contradictory.

§9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter: (g) Employer Obligation to Notify Injured

Worker of Interpreter Selection

Reason:




interpreter present on site to be asked to perform the services, which in turn are objected to

by the employer, and go unpaid.



310




injured worker.





Reason:




to miss seeing a patient for whom the employer has failed to comply with their obligation

to send the interpreter.





Reason:










business day.

Reason:


311




is on site and available and states that the employer did not contact him, he does not get to perform

the services.








Reason:

Because the practical application of this is simply not feasible.There are all too often unforeseen


interpretation, etc. For example, an interpreter might go on the record initially stating they have 2 cases.

After completing the first case, they find that the other case has been cancelled. Now they are only there

for one case. Their billing would not reflect the official record leading to billing disputes that would need

to be resolved at a hearing before the WCAB, not to mention an accusation of perjury. Because this

places an undue burden on the hearing officers and the certified interpreters who are engaged in servicing

the LEP injured worker and those who need to communicate with her. Hearing officers verifying

credentials is one thing. Policing of certified interpreters as set forth by this section is an insult to the

profession.





have complete control and prerogative over sending a non-certified interpreter? Doesn’t the injured

worker have a say over the quality of service he/she will get?



Reason:


312


whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter? This is simply absurd

The interpreter profession has already provided the DIR/DWC with a work-around: on May 20, 2016, a

document titled Provisionally Certified Interpreter Appeal, signed by 14 interpreting associations, nation-

wide, was sent to AD Parisotto and Staff Cousel Hersh warning about the dangers and recommending an



protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.













interpreters on the websites listings.


interpreter’s bill Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already requires this information

Because this places an undue burden on medical providers.




during the same one-hour medical treatment appointment time period or the same two-hour medical legal


period ; The medical provider shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report

or medical file.

Reason:


313




and the interpreter. The medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the employer



Reason:















busy nights. Jiffy-lube doesn’t charge less the more customers they service in any given hour.



informal settings

Reason:




Reason:





314




availability to the injured worker. Additionally these interpreters must travel long distances to





§9938. Interpreter Billing Requirements for Payment: (12) A declaration by the interpreter stating: “I

declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this report and its attachments, if any,

is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” The declaration shall be signed and dated

by the interpreter and indicate the county and state in which it was signed.

Reason:




performed the services


____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Rosalie M. Foigelman April 12, 2018

I am a court certified Spanish interpreter working for many agencies. I understand the importance of

interpreters having a fee schedule but there are some very negative areas that will force interpreters out of

the industry and other areas that are just outright discrimination against the interpreter industry.

9930 (m) – there is no shortage of certified Spanish interpreters. This is solely for the purpose of

allowing the insurance carriers to pay less and utilize non-certified interpreters. It’s far too easy to

utilize a non-certified interpreter as it’s written now.

9933 – This is 100% discrimination against interpreters as no other provider in workers’

compensation has to state the number of cases or patients they are scheduled to see. This is a complete

waste of time for the court to require this be documented.


315

Apart from feeling this is geared only towards interpreters please take into consideration how different

fees for the same type of service will be more complicated then helpful. I’m concerned about the

industry and as much as we need a fee schedule we don’t need added work for us, the providers and

the court. If you remove the computation and possibly just find an amount in the middle of both the first

fee and the ones that follow this would simply the entire process.

Should this policy be adopted, "I will no longer take any assignments for a reading of a deposition as I

can make more accepting medicals over these assignments".

I will no longer take any treatment appointments as this new one hour minimum doesn't give us ample

time to consider waiting time yet we are forced to only reserve one hour. I will schedule another

assignment after one hour and have to leave the injured worker without an interpreter. They can wait for

the insurance to schedule another one or reschedule the appointment. Both of these are inconvenient for

the injured worker. A two hour minimum is reasonable and again remove the computation of

assignments and find a happy medium in between both fees so you don’t add work to the provider who

DOES not have to document the amount of patients they see along with the amount their PA’s see.

Another inconvenience is to add a signed declaration on the bill. The agency that hires me will have to

sign the declaration as I don’t bill any insurance carriers.

Please take this all into consideration when revising the proposed fee schedule.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Jose I. Garcia April 12, 2018

Certified Court Reporter

Independent Contractor

The proposed fee schedule will slowly but surely lower the standards of the profession in the workers'

comp arena and quality of service to injured workers of all languages. It will transform a full time job

into a part time job for the ones to remain in this arena. I wonder whether insurances would ever like to

make business under a different rate than market rate and would ever accept a public entity to impose

their fees on their business. Workers' comp interpreters are not employees and therefore having no

benefits is a burden on their budget. Lack of professionalism will start to become the norm if we allowed

unlicensed interpreters to take over jobs that have traditionally been held by language experts who had to

go to school to achieve reasonable levels of proficiency in a foreign language and go through a vetting

process.

Those rates for depositions and deposition reviews sound unrealistic if we take into account that

interpreters are not paid for their traveling time, which is extremely precious in one of the cities with the

worst traffic in the world like Los Angeles. Punctuality is a standard rule among interpreters whereas not


316

so much required from attorneys. A half a day should be 3 hrs. 15 minutes (to allow independent

contractors to arrive to their next appointment) and a full day 6 hours.

Proposed rates will only make many agencies unnecessarily get out of business leaving individual

interpreters to deal with paperwork they never had to handle before in order to get paid for jobs they

were promptly getting paid by those exact well-capitalized agencies this reform will end up eliminating.

Interpreters are usually not bill collectors. Agencies are and should be motivated to survive in the system

to make it work.

The rate reduction will definitely impact the number of court certified interpreters available in Workers'

comp as a percentage of those Court Certified Interpreters serving the injured workers will opt to work

directly for the Civil or Criminal Courts one way or another opening the door to the ones that, with all

my due respect lacking the expertise, certification and qualifications , face a workers' comp court

hearing leaving the injured worker without the tools to state his case and probably his or her attorney

helpless to fully defend their position before the judge. It is unfortunately also most applicants and

their chances to win their cases that the new reform is targeting. It is simply a biased intent to destroy the

system as it is right now for the benefit of the companies many of these hard-working individuals gave

their sweat and tears for years in a foreign country that is in many cases not even their own. Strong

opposition by interpreters to this is not an option, it is a must.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Huyen Phung April 12, 2018

I would like to strongly oppose to the proposed fee schedule for interpreter services, which unfairly

lowers the pay rates to certified interpreter.

Interpreter is a highly professional job, which always requires extreme concentration, accuracy to

complete each assignment. Also, the job demands continuous education and practice to keep up with the

industry. Certified interpreters deserve to have a good pay.

Lowering the pay rates will tremendously badly affect all interpreters.

Please keep the rate the same.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_


317

Anne De Santis, Washington State April 12, 2018


Court, Medical & Social Service

I stand in solidarity with the professional Certified Interpreters in the State of California. I fully support

them in this negotiation and I’m glad to see they are taking a stand. In the end, this affects all of us. Not

just Interpreters, but all of the providers and LEPs that we serve. The integrity of the profession is at

stake.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Cecilia Tello, Certified Medical Interpreter April 12, 2018

Certification # 101391

The California Interpreters Fee Schedule Proposal will impact every single working Interpreter,

freelance, and agent in the state of CA.in a negative way, and destroy our profession.


To Section 34 Appointment Notification and Cancellation :




9931.


(c)(3):










318


doctors or other services are. This has created a situation where a substantial pool of certified interpreters

is available to work, yet they cannot work directly for the MPN because there is no way for them to be

incorporated and/or individually listed.






MPN.






(f) Half-Day means:

(2) It is strongly recommended that depositions shall also be defined in terms of half day (morning) from

8:30-noon, and half day (afternoon) from 1 PM on Depositions are problematic in that most of them

begin at 10 am or 11 am, unlike hearings which start at 8:30 AM or 1:30 PM. The proposed definition of

a deposition will require an interpreter to commit 3.5 hours of the most productive hours of their day to

only ONE event for one flat fee. From a financial standpoint, it seems unrealistic and unreasonable and it

will deter any interpreter to take work at depositions as it limits their ability to accept any other work

around it. This is surely to lead to a massive rejection of deposition work by certified interpreters which

in turn will have a detrimental effect on Limited English Proficient (LEP hereafter) injured workers.









319








interpreter”.









worker.




(a)(b)(c) The interpreting community is very concerned about the language in these paragraphs!

Again, on a daily basis we witness, proof of which has been provided to the DIR, of widespread

violations of the certification requirement via the loophole contained in this language. The offending

parties commonly use the practice of sending massive emails to interpreters who do not work for them

(due to their low wages and abusive practices). Since these interpreters don’t respond, the LSP can use

this as an excuse/proof that they did their due diligence in contacting certified interpreters in the area.

Requiring a party to contact ONLY 3 interpreters is not enough to stop these abuses.


(f) It cannot be stressed enough how the requirement in the proposed language for this section

9933(f) will be an absolute and unmitigated administrative nightmare for judges, attorneys, interpreters,



320























with the seeming problem. However, prorated billing and sworn declarations are not the answer. Here are

a few of the nightmarish scenarios that will make this proposed solution worse than the problem:









321















circumstances.







Is the $40 savings that the language proposes really worth the cost of foreseen litigation,

administrative burden on judges and doctors, and delay that this proposed pro-ration will cause?









Federal court rates, it is ESSENTIAL that a geographical rate modifier/ supplement be added.

There are a myriad of differences between court employees and per diems and workers compensation

interpreters. Here are some:


322


frequent and unfounded objections and delays in payment. The Workers Comp interpreting









hours per year. Free-lance interpreters have absolutely NO BENEFITS. They must buy their own

health insurance, have no sick-day or vacation pay, employer contribution for retirement and















Other remarks:






____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Ana Sevilla April 12, 2018



323

I am an independent Certified Court Interpreter since 2003, this is my full time job and I am dependent

on this income. I’m voicing my concern regarding the new proposed fee schedule.

The proposed fee seems reasonable if that is the actual fee for the interpreter ($255/$488). There should

be an additional percentage for the agency or broker to negotiate.

I live in Southern California and the proposed 3.5 hrs for half day is unattainable. Usually a deposition

start at 10:00 am - 1:00 pm and at 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm. Remember that during that hour I have to travel

from one location to another and eat something. As a general rule I am asked to get to the location 15

minutes prior the start time. With the proposed 3.5 hours for half day I would only have 15 minutes to

travel, eat, park, etc. Anything that goes over 3 hours should be considered a full day up to 6 hours.

Section 9930(a) its not very clear and it can create some confusion or a loophole for those that want to

take advantage of the wording. It should clearly state that only a Court Certified Interpreter can cover


And last but not least, there is absolutely no need to use a provisionally certified interpreter, specially for

Spanish, in any type of assignments; Depositions, hearings, medical legal appointments are always

schedule in advance, if whoever is looking for a certified interpreter is not finding one, is because they

are leaving the hiring at the very last minute to avoid de 24 hr cancellation fee or is offering a job without

the proper compensation. This measure is disrespectful and an unfair practice for all Certified Interpreters

that have worked very hard to get Certified and continue to work hard on their education to hold a valid

certification.

The results that are expected from any of the services provided to an LEP claimant being legal med

appointments, depositions or hearings would be worthless if the interpreter is not accurate, fair and

neutral. We deserve to be recognized and compensated as the professionals we are.

____________________________________________________________________________________

S. James Tsui April 12, 2018

SJT & Associates

1. DWC proposed this new regulation with the majority Spanish language interpreters in mind.

In theory, all languages should be treated equal, but it is not realistic in the WC arena. Just walk into any

WCAB, see how many non-Hispanic applicants and non-Spanish interpreters are there?


324

There is just not that many WC hearing and medical jobs for non-Spanish interpreters to make it a full

time job. Most certified Chinese interpreters charge a lot more in civil cases, business conferences, trade

exhibits and shows, delegation escorts and in general, the private business sector.

The proposed billing fees are for agencies, that means fees for interpreters are much less. I can guarantee

you, no Chinese language interpreters will take WC jobs, legal or medical. Even if they are available on a

certain day and will take the WC job offered, they will cancel the job if a non-WC job is offered on the

same day.

The proposed billing fee will deprived Chinese speaking injured workers of certified interpreters'

services. Maybe the provisionally certified interpreters will take the jobs. Perhaps it is the insurance

companies goal??

2. 9934 - (e) "Interpreters shall inform the medical provider whether this is the first or subsequent

interpretation during the same one-hor medical treatment appointment time period........the total

number of interpretations the interpreter is scheduled to do during the same period. The medical

provider shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report or medical file.

This rule must have been designed by someone sitting in a cubicle. I would invite this person(s) to go

into any workers comp clinic and see how the doctors, PTP or STP work. All doctors are complaining

about the increased paperwork since SB863 and per MTUS guideline. The doctors are busy with

examinations of the injured worker, filling out the PR2, reviewing recent MRI reports or prior medical

records if it is put in the chart by the front desk for the doctors to review, etc. etc.

You seriously expect the doctor want to be bothered by the interpreters telling him/her about the number

of jobs done in that one-hour period and to record it onto the PR2? Is there even space provided in the

PR2 for this additional info.

9934-(e) is ludicrous, impractical dreamed by someone who has never known or seen the inside of a WC

clinic.

3. Additional Hearing(s) In Same Time Slot If there are 3 hearings in same time slot, one ins carrier is ABC, one is XYZ and the 3rd is LMN.

Is the agency required to tell XYZ and LMN that it is the 2nd job and 3rd job in the same time slot? And

who determines which hearing is the first job?

Or may be the so called additional hearing(s) pertains to the same ins carrier?

If two hearings are under 2 different carriers, both are considered the first hearing during the same time

slot?

4. 9931 - (f)


325

If the injured worker is responsible for selecting the interpreter, the injured worker or his/her

agent, if represented, shall prompty select the interpreter and notify the employer within two

business days of the selection, so the emloyer has sufficent time to arrange for the presence of the

interpreter.

It doesn't make sense. You mean if the injured worker selected agency ABC, who in turned assigned the

job to interpreter John Doe. The applicant attorney shall notify the employer/adjuster within 2 business

days of the selection, so the employer/adjuster has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of John

Doe?

Sir/Madame, does it make sense to you???

There a lot more comments to be made, I hope you can extend the deadline to post comments.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Esmy Villacreses, CA Certified Interpreter April 12, 2018

On Time Interpreting, Inc.

As a California based Interpreting Agency, we are very concerned with the proposed fee schedule for

interpreters. We believe that the DIR must take more input from those of us that are in the trenches each

day providing interpreting to the injured workers in the Workers’ Compensation system.

We believe that these proposals are written with absolutely no thought of how detrimental it will be to the

everyday working independent interpreter as well as the interpreting agencies. The proposed regulations

will flood the system with more paperwork and increased litigation erasing any gains that the proposed

regulations would hope for.

The proposed regulations put a large burden on small business, adding countless hours of paperwork and

oversight to interpreters, interpreting agencies and the Medical Providers they serve.

The 75% computation of fees for “the second and each successive interpretation during the same time

period” (should be location specific and does not appear in the proposed regulations) should be stricken

from the proposed changes. This will cause an absolute quagmire of complications between interpreters,

interpreting agencies and the carriers. What mechanism is in place for the DIR to police this type of

billing computation? Will all the responsibility be set upon the interpreter or interpreting agencies, once

again? This proposal opens up the interpreter or the interpreting agency to accusations of fraud at the

slightest clerical error. While these regulations are not being applied to other providers providing services

to the very same clients. These proposed regulations limit the earning potential of interpreters and


326

interpreting agencies which will cut down on the availability of qualified, credentialed and certified

interpreters.

The new proposal to prorate services are discriminatory towards the interpreting industry. Interpreters

should not be forced to prorate for services rendered, while other service providers are not held to this

standard. Medical providers see multiple patients per day and bill fee schedule for each appointment.

Attorneys at the WCAB do not prorate fees when handling multiple cases at the same board. The services

that an interpreter provides are no less important to these cases and should be treated as such. This one

size fits all approach also will not work in such a large region with dense cities as well as rural areas.

The one hour minimum discourages a qualified, credentialed and certified interpreter to take a job due to

the travel time and in certain regions, the distance. It creates a situation where it costs the interpreter more

to do the appointment than the compensation will cover. Thus, creating an environment where less

qualified, credentialed and certified interpreters will take work.

The definitions in the proposed regulations are vague and play favorites to the employer, defense and

carrier. In that, they leave loopholes and work arounds that allow them to completely cut out the use of a

qualified, credentialed and certified interpreter. Allowing medical providers, hearing officers and

adjusters the power to declare a person “provisionally certified” will flood the industry with unqualified

interpreters (and already has), in turn damaging the outcome of many cases and undercutting the industry

professionals that are qualified, credentialed and certified to provide these much-needed services.

The proposed fee amounts are to cover all languages including languages of lesser diffusion. This will

cause many interpreters to no longer offer their services to the industry. Once again allowing unqualified

interpreters to step in and degrade the quality and potentially cause damage to a case.

Extending the hours for Half Day and Full Day make no concession for the quality of life of the

interpreter. Cutting out lunch breaks is inhumane and is not allowed in any other workplace. The

extended hours also limit the travel time for an interpreter to reach another job on the same day, thus

limiting that interpreter’s earning potential.

We believe that the payment to the interpreter and interpreting agency should not be tied to the rise or fall

of a case. The interpreting services rendered are pivotal to the determining of whether a case is accepted

or denied and should be paid regardless of the outcome of the case.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Victor Fridman, Administrative Hearings April 12, 2018

Certification #100729


327

The proposed regulations, if not corrected, will lead to an exodus of certified interpreters working, like

me, in Northern California’s WCABs and depositions.

If insurance claims examiners are allowed to hire non certified interpreters, then they will mostly prefer

to work with cheaper, non certified interpreters, and our certifications will become meaningless. (The

requirement to contact three certified interpreters first, is laughable.)

Claims examiners do not have language skills, don’t know the interpreters, and are under heavy pressure

to lower costs.

Making the certification meaningless and certified interpreters unavailable, would discriminate

against non English speakers constitutional right to equal access to our justice system.

The quality of the interpretation is essential, because what gets lost in translation, is the credibility of the

claimant and his/her claim.

Most injured workers must face the system without legal representation, so their need for certified

interpreters means their only chance to be heard and present a credible claim.

The new regulations eliminating payment for mileage and travel time will discriminate against

NES living far from large urban areas, where there are no certified interpreters at all, as

interpreters must live in large urban areas where most of the work is done.

WCAB in places like Ukiah would not be able to attract any certified interpreters at all without paying

mileage and travel time. The Santa Rosa WCAB will suffer a serious shortage of interpreters.

Interpreters need protection from carriers who systematically ignore valid bills or pay unjustified

reduced rates. There is no time frame when payments must be issued (there is right now a 60 day

period). It would greatly help to overcome this pervasive problem by establishing an automatic 10%

penalty at the end of the 60 days. Then, interpreters should send a demand notice to carrier, and if after

30 days of said notice payment has not been yet issued, another 10% penalty applies, and so on. The

same if carrier issues the wrong payment, ex.: paying a medical appointment rate, instead of a higher

legal rate, or a non-certified rate to a certified interpreter. This is a type of fraud which interpreters are

frequently subjected to.

The proposed different rates for Interpretation of multiple cases at the WCAB, will create a lot of

litigation, as those carriers who regularly cheats interpreters will systematically pay a lower rate for

multiple cases even when it was the only case. Interpreters will not be able to spend their time litigating

$30 or $40 reductions, with the impossibility of providing evidence that it was actually only one case.

What will happen when one interpreter has more than one interpretation but from different language

providers? Why the LSP will get paid less if it was their only case? How the hired interpreter will state

under penalty of perjury over the LSP invoice?


328

This regulation does not work in real life and will create more unnecessary litigation.

The proposed lower rate for depositions transcripts reviews, with an irrealistic one hour minimum,

will certainly mean that no certified interpreter will be available.

It is unrealistic to expect that a certified interpreter to spend a half day of work driving back and forth to

an applicant’s attorney’s office, for just one hour of work to be paid at $56.00, minus the agency

commission. That is not a living wage.

Defunding interpreters is a way to replace them with cheap, improvised interpreters,

discriminating against NES.

In the preparation of a claimant for a deposition and in deposition reviews, the attorney/client priviledge

demands that applicant’s attorneys and not carriers must be the ones to hire the interpreter, and avoid the

risk of a spy.

The one rate fits all at California WCAB and depositions is not realistic, it should be adjusted by

region.

The one rate fits all is raising the rate for areas who were not asking for it, and cuts the rate in places like

the Bay Area, which will result in fewer certified interpreters.

More fair and realistic would be to have a fixed schedule for WCAB and depositions set by the President

Judge of each WCAB, according to the need of each region. Each case would then be billed according the

WCAB where the claim has been filed in.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Paulina S. Ozeda, Esq. April 12, 2018

Hinden & Breslavsky, APC

The proposal as it stands raises many concerns and threatens to turn the Workers Compensation process

into a more tedious and litigious system than what we already have.

Let’s not forget that the Injured Worker has a civil right to a certified interpreter under Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. 2000D. By watering down the requirements to provide the

limited English proficient injured workers with a certified interpreter, you are essentially impinging on

their rights for equal protection. Thus, not only will the injured worker be discriminated upon, opening


329

the state up to civil rights lawsuits, but it will also clog up the system with unnecessary paperwork and

increased litigation.

People forget Workers Compensation is a liberally construed system (as set forth in labor code 3202) to

provide benefits and protection to injured workers. More and more, the proposed Workers Compensation

laws are eroding the primary purpose this system was created for - to help individuals during a time of

crisis; to their health, financial stability, and often their future.

As with any system or process, we should always look for ways to improve its efficiency and

efficacy. And while there are ways to streamline and reduce expenses in the system, an individual’s right

to communicate, understand their case, the legal statements they make and options available is not the

place to be frugal. Moreover, interpreter costs are not the unnecessary drain or gaping inefficiency that

some want to make it out to be. It is an essential resource that makes the difference between a fair and

honest trial, and one where an already injured worker can be taken advantage of.

The desire or hope to incrementally improve on the system (and its budget) is a worthwhile goal, but it

should not even enter the conversation when an injured worker’s civil rights and the fundamental goal of

the system are at stake.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Liliana Loofbourow April 12, 2018

State of California Spanish Interpreter


Administrative Hearing/Medical

Interpreters are highly trained professionals who have studied languages for years—they have mastered

complex legal and medical terminology, and they have passed an extremely rigorous certification

process. That process exists to protect the non-English speaking injured worker. It exists—and

professional interpreters exist—to guarantee that an injured worker who happens not to speak English

will not receive differential treatment under a labyrinthine worker’s compensation system which (though

it all too frequently fails) aspires to be accurate, thorough, and just. This legislation is a disaster—not just

for professional interpreters, who deserve better than to be subject to what amounts to a form of

discrimination—but for the injured workers, who stand to have their lives adversely and irrevocably

affected by the changes proposed.


330

Professional interpreters exist to ensure that non-English speakers will be ably and accurately

represented. The role professional interpreters play is crucial, and I emphasize “professional” because

there is simply no way to overstate the extent to which the legal and medical terminology that goes into a

worker’s compensation case is available to the average person, even if they’re fully bilingual. These are

specialized fields, with specialized vocabularies, and those vocabularies matter: cases are decided on that

basis.

It is essential that injured workers be empowered to both receive and transmit information that is

thorough and correct.

The proposed legislation would enable parties who have no qualifications to evaluate an interpreter’s

skills to “designate” a random party and provisionally certify them. Perhaps it’s a son, or an

administrative assistant, or someone who happens to be in the waiting room who speaks the language in

question. An adjuster—or doctor, or judge—could, according to these changes, point to that person and

say “you are now a certified interpreter.”

To demonstrate how deeply inappropriate and irresponsible this is, it might be instructive to ask the

average person on the street to translate a deposition, or to explain a complex surgical procedure to a

passerby.

This is an effort to completely undermine the rights of injured workers. It is an insult to professional

interpreters, who take their responsibilities toward the population they serve extremely seriously and train

for years in order to be able to do it well. It absurdly overestimates the discriminatory powers doctors and

judges—who are neither magical nor omniscient, and who are no more qualified to “certify” interpreters

than they are to “certify” someone a banker for a day, or a lawyer, or a nurse. This is not a game.

People’s lives are in the balance.

If this goes through, the following can be expected to take place:

1) The health and recovery of non-English-speaking Injured Workers will be jeopardized by the State

of California—to the benefit of the insurance companies, who are quite literally the only beneficiaries of

these changes.

2) Injured workers will de facto lose their right to due process.

3) Doctors will be at far greater risk for malpractice or poor treatment: if effectively forced by the State of

California to treat patients with the misunderstandings poor translations frequently produce, they will be

writing opinions and reports based on inadequate or erroneous information.

4) Doctors, in addition to the responsibilities they already face, will now have to serve as timekeepers,

recording the amount of time the interpreter spent with the injured worker. Here, too, doctors are credited

with an omniscience they simply do not have: anyone who has ever attended a medical appointment

knows that the time spent with the doctor is a small fraction of the time spent in his office. An injured

worker does not have the right to an interpreter during her time with the doctor; she has a right to an

interpreter whenever she is asked to provide or receive medical information. She has a legal right to an


331

interpreter when she has to fill out forms she cannot understand, follow instructions, schedule her next

appointment, collect her prescriptions. There are three choices, then.

(a) If the proposed legislation sincerely proposes that the doctor personally supervise and document

all these transactions, the system will be broken in weeks, not months.

(b) If the proposed legislation proposes to deny the patient the right to an interpreter while filling out

all the forms the doctor will ultimately use when writing her report, that’s a flagrant violation of

the law and demonstrates the extent to which injured workers have become ancillary to the system

intended to serve them.

(c) If the proposed legislation proposes that interpreters simply attend the doctor’s appointment with

the injured worker for however long it takes (frequently upwards of an hour) but only get paid for

the few minutes spent with the doctor, then interpreters, who must make a living too, will have no

choice but to schedule many more appointments per day. If a doctor happens to run late (and I

suggest you take a survey of how many medical offices actually run on time)—the interpreter will

have to abandon the injured, because another appointment is scheduled elsewhere.

No part of these revisions serve the injured worker. None. These changes do serve the insurance

companies, who would certainly prefer to pay interpreters as little as possible—for one hour instead of

two, and at hourly rates that were fixed in the 90s. But it’s not the State of California’s job to care for the

pocketbooks of the insurance companies; the State of California is answerable to the injured workers, the

huge population of non-English speakers who make this great state run, and justice—which cannot be

served if an adversarial system is replaced by one in which the insurance companies hold all the cards.

Under the new legislation, the insurance carrier will have full control over every step of the process—up

to and including the appointment of an interpreter. This is unacceptable for a number of reasons, the most

significant of which are these:

1. Insurance companies are able to have fully private conferences with their attorneys. Injured workers

are forced to communicate with their lawyers through an interpreter appointed by their legal

adversary.

The omission of “market rate” from the labor code means that interpreters are entirely at the mercy of the

claims adjuster, who may or may not deign to pay them some amount over the stipulated interpreter pay

rate (which, again, was fixed in the 90s). This means insurance companies have leverage over interpreters

and interpreters have none. It’s a situation that incentivizes corruption and collusion between

unscrupulous interpreters and equally unscrupulous adjusters (who can offer to pay more if a certain

outcome is achieved, for example) and penalizes honesty. One hopes that everyone in every system is

100% honest, but it’s inadvisable to actively build a system that actually rewards crooked

Finally §9930(a) (Definitions, “Certified interpreter for hearings and depositions”) needs to specify that

only interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website or on the California Courts website are

allowed to interpret at administrative hearings and depositions.


332

While it is true that there is a concern regarding interpreters that routinely sign in on multiple

appearances and that some interpreters have created a monopoly at some WCAB’s at the cost of

providing poor or no services to injured workers but charging for these services, it would not be fair to

penalize all interpreters by allocating them 75% on secondary services for the same time slot. There

would be no incentive for helping the second person and stressing trying to help both. Pro-rating

interpreter services is unfair to interpreters in isolated, rural areas and small Appeals Boards. Interpreters

are at the mercy of court calendars and medical provider schedules. Interpreters do not make their own

schedules and should not be penalized when working harder in the same time period.

The issue of MPN’s non compliance needs to be addressed by the Department of Industrial

Relations immediately. The rules are:

§9767.3. (c ) (3) (1) By submission of an ancillary provider listing, the applicant is affirming that the

providers listed can provide the requested medical services or goods and have a current valid license

number or certification to practice, if they are required to have a license or certification by the State of

California. If interpreter services are included as an MPN ancillary service, the interpreters listed must be

certified pursuant to section 9795.1.6(a)(2)(A) and (B).

As of today no insurance company who claims to have an MPN can provide a list of interpreters as

required by the Regulations, NONE. They have established the MPN but they failed to submit

Attachment B which is the listing of ancillary providers of interpreters with the list of MPN Certified

Interpreter and their current certification number. This list must be updated periodically. I am requesting

that you address this issue of non compliance immediately.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Beatriz Goldstein April 12, 2018

US Federally Certified Interpreter

I find the provisions that contemplate the employment of non-certified interpreters in official government

settings appalling. The accuracy and reliability of the interpretation is crucial to the outcome of cases.

The interpreter's impartiality when interpreting is vital as well.

Furthermore, what linguistic knowledge and qualifications do the majority of judges, lawyers and

physicians have to assess whether someone can interpret accurately and in an impartial way?


333

A wise interpreter once stated "having ten fingers does not make one a concert pianist." Thus, speaking

two languages then does not make one an interpreter. The use of unprofessional and inferior services

would have a deleterious effect on the legal process and be injurious to the disabled.

Please do not denigrate the interpreting profession. Do not debase the art of interpreting by taking such

measures. I hate to think that since the system mostly deals with blue collar, Spanish-speaking claimants

the importance of professionalism, impartiality, justice and fairness in providing interpreting services is

cast aside.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Victor Fridman April 12, 2018

Administrative Hearings Interpreter






9931.


(c)(3):














334






MPN.






(f) Half-Day means:









workers.











335






interpreter”.









injured worker.













336






























· It does not allow for the difference between an individual working/billing the employer directly, and



337








· What if an interpreter is covering a hearing for one LSP and an emergency arises where they have to


























338



Here are some:


frequent and unfounded objections and delays in payment. The Workers Comp interpreting assignment

doesn’t end when the event ends. Thereafter this assignment must be laboriously invoiced, served,

appealed, frequently subjected to the costs and delays of IBR. Sometimes interpreters go for years

without seeing a single dollar of pay for a simple WCAB appearance they did. Court interpreters get

their check at the end of the month.



















many area.

Other remarks:





339



____________________________________________________________________________________

Selin Cacao, Founder/CEO April 12, 2018

Focus Interpreting & Translation

So far what I can say is I am glad to see a detailed fee schedule proposed, however, I do not agree with

the one our minimums for medical treatment appointments.

Our industry has a standard 2-hour minimum fee with 15-minute increments thereafter.

The fee schedule is for what the interpreter should be paid, DIR has never considered overhead costs for

the agencies who are contacted by the insurance carriers. Florida based companies such as OneCall enjoy

having a monopoly of these ancillary services thus the fee schedule does not apply and they are allowed

to charge higher rates. I have never seen or heard of an adjuster or employer contacting an individual

interpreter for interpreting services.

In my opinion, this proposed fee schedule will put an additional strain on small to midsize language

agencies who service work-comp. The market rate option should still be allowed and enforced, or the

remaining agencies will be forced to either close or look for business elsewhere.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Luis E. Minero April 12, 2018

Regarding section 9937, I would like to make some comments. I am an independent court certified

interpreter, experienced in my field and dependent on the income derived from serving in this highly

skilled profession,

and would like you to please note that:

The proposal raises many concerns for the following reasons, thus, consider opposing the following

specific sections:




340






REASON:











depositions”

Reason:





CHANGE TO 7 HOURS

Reason:





breaks.


341


REQUIRED





DEFINITION FOR DEPOSITIONS.

Reason:




often take place in differing locations.


BAK 141379 case.



Reason:








Reason:


Under §9930. Definitions: There is no allowance for MILEAGE AND TRAVEL TIME


342

Reason:



this.

Under §9930. Definitions:Add definition for: NO SHOW FEES

Reason:










Reason:




contradictory.



Reason:







343




Reason:





interpreter.





Reason:










business day.

Reason:



records? What is the penalty for not complying with these requirements?

Because if a certified interpreter is on site and available and states that the employer did not contact him,

he does not get to perform the services.


344








Reason:



interpretation, etc.




hearing before the WCAB, not to mention an accusation of perjury.


engaged in servicing the LEP injured worker and those who need to communicate with her. Hearing

officers verifying credentials is one thing. Policing of certified interpreters as set forth by this section is

an insult to the profession.


Legal Evaluations:



Reason:


whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter?

This is simply absurd The interpreter profession has already provided the DIR/DWC with a work-around:

on May 20, 2016, a document titled Provisionally Certified Interpreter Appeal, signed by 14 interpreting

associations, nation-wide, was sent to AD Parisotto and Staff Cousel Hersh warning about the dangers

and recommending an alternative to this misguided notion.

Because this is a very dangerous proposal that risks trampling on the limited English proficient injured


345


Rights Act of 1964


Legal Evaluations:











interpreters on the websites listings.


interpreter’s bill. Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already requires this information



Legal Evaluations:


during the same one-hour medical treatment appointment time period or the same two-hour medicallegal


period ; The medical provider shall note this information in the medical-legal exam report or medical file.

Reason:







Reason:


346














appointment. Attorneys at the WCAB do not prorate their fees to different clients.

Restaurants do not charge less on busy nights. Jiffy-lube doesn’t charge less the more customers they

service in any given hour. This is discriminatory.


informal settings.

Reason:




Reason:




BRG study included a compilation of fees charged by interpreters throughout the state.


(LLD). Many of these interpreters receive a small volume of assignments per year and the fees must be

higher in order to ensure availability to the injured worker. Additionally these interpreters must travel

long distances to preform services. Many LLD interpreters have expressed that these proposed fees

would drive them out of workers’ compensation and into other industries with better compensation.

Because the two-hour minimum is an industry wide standard. Because many assignments require an


347

interpreter to travel to the site where services are to be rendered. Because the free hand of the market

should prevail.






Reason:


interpreter providing the services. It is called an Interpreter Verification Form (IVF)/ Because when an



___________________________________________________________________________________

Amy B. Donovan, Esq. April 12, 2018

Vice President, Legislative & Regulatory Affairs

Corporate Legal Department

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DIR’s proposed regulations on the Fees and

Requirements for Interpreters. While Keenan supports the effort to set a fee schedule and to establish

more specific requirements for both certified and provisionally certified interpreters, we have concerns

regarding the administrative burden proposed section 9931 and 9932 would put on employers and

administrators.

1. As written, the proposed section 9931 sets forth a complicated process where the responsibility for

selecting an interpreter does not clearly lie with one party, but instead depends on the type of proceeding,

whether the injured worker is covered under an MPN, and numerous other factors. This process is

unnecessarily complex and confusing. If implemented in their current form, we believe these regulations

would lead to more confusion, miscommunication, delay and cost in the system. We believe this process

could be simplified with a rule that states that the party responsible for paying the interpreter should

select the interpreter. Section 9931(i) is especially concerning. Under that section, if an injured worker

claims not to have gotten notice from the employer, the injured worker can bring his or her own

interpreter. If two interpreters show up, the injured worker’s interpreter does the work, and the employer


348

must pay both. We see this provision as likely lead to litigation over interpreter fees, where employers are

forced to “prove” that they contacted the injured worker within the appropriate period. It is a provision

that will create confusion, delay and extra costs in the system.

2. It is also unclear from the proposed regulations how the Section 9931 selection process interacts with

the Section 9932 process for establishing that a certified interpreter cannot be present. Subsection

9932(e) states “if the party initially responsible for selecting the certified interpreter is unable [to] arrange

for a certified interpreter, after exhausting the requirements of this section, the alternative process of

section 9931(h) shall apply.” Section 9931(h) essentially switches the responsibility to arrange for an

interpreter to the other party. Does this mean that the party responsible for selecting can never select a

provisionally certified interpreter? This issue is also apparent in section 9930(k), which defines

“provisionally certified interpreter for hearings and depositions” as “an individual deemed qualified to

interpret at hearings and depositions when the requirements in sections 9931(a) and 9933 have been

met.” Section 9931(a) states, “certified interpreters in the languages set forth in sections 9930(a) and (b)

shall be used, except when a certified interpreter cannot be present, as provided in section 9932, after

exhausting the selection procedures of this section.” Section 9932 sets forth the requirements that must

be met to establish that a certified interpreter cannot be present, ending in the responsibility for selection

being switched to the other party. (Section 9932(h)). The same problem is present in Section

9930(l). Essentially, the circular references in these sections don’t lay out a road map to it ever being ok

under the regulations to select a provisionally certified interpreter.

3. Finally, we note that Section 9936(d) provides, “nothing in this section precludes an agreement for

payment of interpreter services, made between the interpreter or agency for interpreting services and the

employer, regardless of whether or not such payment is less than, or exceeds, the fees set forth in this

section and section 9937.” However, section 9931(e)(1) provides that “if the injured worker is not a

covered employee, as defined in section 9767.1(a)(2), in a Medical Provider Network (MPN), the injured

worker shall select and arrange for the presence of the interpreter. This provision will blunt the cost-

effectiveness for employers of contracting with an interpreter service. We submit for your consideration

that if an employer contracts with an interpreter service, it should be allowed to use the contracted service

regardless of whether the injured worker is covered under the employer’s MPN. This is administratively

simpler, and results in greater cost-savings to the system.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Katherine Allen, Co-President April 12, 2018

Interpret America


349

I am a practicing heatlhcare interpreter, trainer and advocate for the interpreting profession. As Co-

President of InterpretAmerica, we submitted comments and resources during the 2016 fee schedule

comment period, many of which the DWC ultimately adopted.

We are dismayed to see the proposals in the current fee schedule. They are a big step backward for decent

and dignified working conditions for professional interpreters and ultimately, for authentic language

access that Workers Comp is required to provide.

We understand that providing interpreter services is essentially an unfunded Federal mandate and it costs

money to comply with the mandate. But what is at stake here is nothing less than the health and well-

being of California workers. As an interpreter in a rural area, I have worked over months and years with

workers injured on the job and have witnessed treatable injuries turn into chronic, disabilities because of

the lack of adequate language access at crucial points of the service process.

As regards this current fee schedule, here are our comments.

The definition of a Provisional Interpreter - (when a certified interpreter is not available) monolingual

medical providers and hearing officers get to decide who is qualified to interpret based on their own

criteria. This is like saying that I, as a patient, should be able to decide who should be considered

competent as a doctor, because I know a little bit about medicine. Interpreting is an advanced skill that

requires training to do correctly. Being bilingual is simply the beginning.

Pay for provisional v. certified interpreters - Provisional interpreters will get paid less than half what

certified interpreters get paid. This is supposed to be an incentive for them to get certified. However,

given the proposed watered down requirements to secure certified interpreters, we believe that this will

result in an even greater increase in the number of jobs going to “provisionals” who will actually have

less incentive to become certified.

Insurance companies will have complete control over who gets to send the interpreter - Insurance

companies will only have to try to hire a certified interpreter three times before sending in a provisional

interpreter. California certified interpreters are already battling agencies and companies willing to send

in non-certified interpreters, when current regulations require interpreters be certified. Living in a rural

area, I see this practice on a regular basis.

Interpreters' minimum charge for medical appointments will be reduced from two hours to one hour. The

logistics of this change are simply impossible. How will an interpreter handle it if he shows up at 9:00am

but then has to wait until 9:45am to be seen? If he also has a 10:15am or 10:30am assignment nearby,

now he either has to leave "early" from the appointment that ran late or arrive late to the second

appointment. Interpreters will get paid less and be able to book fewer appointments.

Interpreters will have to pro-rate their services - Interpreters can charge 100% for the first appointment in

a venue, then 75% for each subsequent one. No other professionals in these settings are asked to pro-rate

their time based on patients seen per venue. This is in reality the same as asking for volume discounts

on commodities, not paying a trained professional a fee for their service. Would you be willing to take

less per hour of pay for every hour you sit in your office?


350

Multiple parties will track interpreter time with no clear reporting mechanism - doctors, lawyer and

judges will all be required to track the number of appointments an interpreter takes in a given time

period, which might be at an hourly or half-day rate. This is a logistical nightmare in the making and

won't justify whatever savings may be gained. Consult with any hospital who has put in interpreting

scheduling systems. Tracking interpreter time is a complicated task that requires dedicated systems and

employees - this is NOT a task for a judge or anyone else with a job description dedicated to other

services than interpreting.

The basic issue here seems to be ignorance of the skill set actually required to provide the mandated

interpreting services - and the logistics interpreters deal with in the settings they interpret in. Please pay

attention to the many thoughtful and articulate comments you are receiving, from people who are expert

in their field. California used to lead the way in providing quality, competent, and verified professional

interpreters for the essential Workers Compensation field. Let's move forward to reclaim that space rather

than put regulations in place that will continue to drive down the quality of services the State provides.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Gaby Vega April 12, 2018

The nature of this email is to request that you please reconsider the proposal.

Please do not cut our fees in less than half and do not do away with some types of services. Would you be

able to make a living if your income were cut in less than half?

This would be detrimental to our profession. Income is to increase and not decrease throughout the

years. This new proposal would be doing just that, decreasing.

We need to have certified interpreters at all proceedings and medical assignments. We should not allow

non-certified interpreters in the field at all. Is there such a thing as a non-lawyer or a non-

architect? There is not therefore only certified interpreters should be allowed to work in our field.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Virginia Wilson April 12, 2018

Spanish Interpreter Certificate No. 300665


351

I am a certified Spanish language interpreter and I provide services in Workers Compensation cases

throughout Southern California. I would like to provide the following comments regarding the proposed

regulations for interpreter fees:

I respectfully request that the DWC kindly address the following:

1. §9936. Computation of Fees (d) needs to specifically give interpreters and agencies the possibility of

negotiating all terms and conditions, not just payment, such as the duration of half day/full day, which

the DWC proposal sets at 3.5 hours and up to 8 hours respectively, and which differs from standard

practice in several areas of California.

2.


that only interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website or on the California Courts website

are allowed to interpret at administrative hearings and depositions.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Bradley Bowen April 12, 2018

California State Certified Interpreter #500400

Thank you for your consideration of comments regarding the proposed interpreter fee schedule. I

am a freelance Certified Spanish medical interpreter and have been working full time in this

capacity for 9 years. I fear that if the proposed fee schedule goes into effect as is, it will

drastically lower Injured Workers access to language interpretation thereby lowering the quality

of their medical attention. I fear that many qualified and certified interpreters will not be able to

support themselves and will leave the profession, lowering the standard of care even more. I fear

that this will allow insurance adjustors to send uncertified interpreters to appointments when

certified interpreters are available just to save money. I also fear that the long list of requirements

to be paid for interpretation services will also be used by insurance companies to not pay for

services rendered, and will place an unfair burden on smaller, local interpretation service

providers.

Before getting into specific concerns about the the proposed fee schedule I just wanted to address

my own situation and that of my profession briefly. I am not sure what issue the fee schedule is

trying to fix and it seems to me that maybe you don't understand the nature of the work

interpreters do in the Workers Compensation system. I work everyday and don't make that much

money. I am single and I currently qualify for subsidies from the federal government to pay my

health insurance Premiums through Covered California. The subsidies cover about half of my

premium on a Bronze plan. This is because I fall below the 400% of poverty line set forth by the


352

ACA. I do not get paid sick days, I have to pay for the full 15.3% of social security, I don't have a

retirement plan and rarely take vacations. I bring this up because the proposed fee schedule

seems like you want to cut our rates. Rates that haven't really changed in the last 10-15 years

despite the fact that the cost of living here in California has increased exponentially, as has traffic

which limits the amount of work I can do. But I accept all of this because I am able to support

myself if I hustle, and I love my job. I'm good at it, I have studied to attain certification, and I

enjoy providing service to my community. But I fear that if this fee schedule goes into effect I

will no longer be able to support myself doing this job.

I already have seen my income drop within the Workers' Compensation system. When I started as

an interpreter 90-95% of my work was QME/AMEs in decent proximity to my home. Previous

changes to Workers' Compensation regulations have strangled local agencies and given an unfair

advantage to a few large out-of-state ones that often simply don't cover appointments or send the

lowest bidding interpreter despite their lack of professionalism, certification or even an ability to

interpret well. This caused the number of QMEs available to me to drop, and I started covering

more treatment appointments and having to drive further to make the same amount of money.

Now I only do about 75% of my work within the current system. 25% of my work is interpreting

for schools. I needed to find more work to make ends meet. And of the work I do within Workers'

Compensation, many of those appointments are treatments which often pay less. Your proposed

1-hour minimum for treatment seems absurd. I often have to drive an hour round-trip to cover an

appointment. Any lowering of the fee I charge or the 2-hour minimum I charge will make it

unfeasible for me to cover these appointments and make a living. I will have to decline, as will

most professional interpreters, leaving many appointments left uncovered.

As for specific concerns about the proposed fee schedule.

1. §9936. (b) (3): The 1-hr minimum proposed for medical treatment appointments is

unbelievable. 2-hour minimums are standard in the industry and have been for over a

decade. This is because we have to drive to multiple appointments a day and are not

reimbursed for mileage or travel time. Also many treatment appointments last for more

than an hour. First visits are often 2 full hours, and other appointments often run to 1.5

hrs or more. The 2-hours is to assure that I am available for the entire length of the

appointment which often run over due to doctors running behind schedule, patients

arriving late, the complexities of the case, etc. I can't imagine how in California urban

areas, you expect us to accept appointments with a 1 hour minimum. Even if I were able

to bill the insurance directly, which is not the case, $86.50 minimum would be a decrease

in my pay.

2. §9936. (b) (3): The 2-hour minimum proposed for medical-legal evaluations does not take

into account psychological evaluations, Functional capacity evaluations, or Vocational

Rehab appointments. Though increasingly less common, they are still common enough to


353

factor into your proposed fee schedule. They generally have a 4-hour minimum,

sometimes higher. And QMEs themselves often go longer than 2 hours. This is why One

Call Care often gives a 3-hour minimum for Orthopedic and other QMEs.

3. §9937. The fee itself. It is unclear to me, but seems the $86.50/hr proposed for medically

certified interpreters is the maximum amount the insurance would have to pay. This

would be wonderful if I or any of my colleagues worked for insurance companies directly,

but almost all of us work for agencies, or interpretation service providers. At times at the

beginning of my career, I would work directly for insurers, but insurance companies often

took several months to pay after invoice, often cut my agreed upon fees without warning,

or simply didn't pay. As an independent contractor, I don't have the time, energy, power or

resources to chase after these comparatively small amounts of money or to file liens. So

now I exclusively work through these agencies. They spend time confirming

appointments, getting authorization, securing payments, etc. and they need to have their

fee as well. I understand this. I, however, do not know how much of a percentage they

take. I can assume that with this current proposed fee schedule they would have to take a

cut and therefore put pressure on me to cut my rates. My rates have not risen in several

years despite the increasing cost of living in California.

4. §9936. (c) (1): For billing of the second or successive appointment times in the same

minimum window. This is something incredibly rare in my experience. And seems to

create all sorts of unanswered questions. Which insurance company pays the reduced

rate? Which agency receives less money? The agency of the 2nd appointment has to take a

cut simply for booking the 2nd appointment when they have no knowledge of the first.

The only reason I can think you've proposed this is to cut down on staff interpreters

charging multiple 2-hour minimums a day. However, later in your proposal you suggest

using a staff interpreter if another interpreter is unavailable. This seems contradictory to

your implied goal. Also staff interpreters, in my experience, are rare and it seems like they

should be considered separately. This creates more paperwork and complications for

everyone involved. Interpreters are being singled out like no other providers: why are

interpreters required to pro-rate their services? Doctors can see 5 patients in a day, or 10

or 20, as long as they bill at fee schedule. They can have a P.A., and treat patients

concurrently, and still bill at the fee schedule for each appointment. Attorneys at the

WCAB do not prorate their fees to different clients. Restaurants do not charge less on

busy nights. This is discriminatory.

5. Section 9932: To establish whether a certified interpreter was available or not. There are

many issues with this section. First, there is no oversight. Who is going to be checking

that 3 interpretation service providers were contacted? Also does this definition include

individual interpreters, or simply agencies with access to dozens of interpreters? Three is

also a very low number. There are 3 listing agencies of certified medical interpreters


354

alone in California which include hundreds of interpreters. Finding a certified interpreter

is usually not the problem. Sending unqualified, unprofessional “interpreters” is. I have

been told many times by injured workers that their previous “interpreter” did not

understand them, or did not accurately interpret what they were saying. Certification

exists for a reason. Injured workers have a right to both understand and be understood

during their course of medical treatment. As does their doctor or medical provider.

6. §9934. (c) The medical provider shall determine if a proposed provisionally certified

interpreter has sufficient skill to be provisionally certified to interpret in the required

language. How can a monolingual medical provider needing an interpreter possibly be the

arbiter of whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter? This is simply

absurd.

7. §9937. Billing Fees and Code: This entire section is problematic because these “one size

fits all” fees do not work for all languages in all geographical locations.

Why not approach fees based on geographic location and language pair? The information

for such a solution has already been presented to the DWC both in writing and in person

on several occasions. The BRG study included a compilation of fees charged by

interpreters throughout the state. Because these fees won’t assure an adequate supply of

interpreters for languages of lesser diffusion (LLD). Many of these interpreters receive a

small volume of assignments per year and the fees must be higher in order to ensure

availability to the injured worker. Additionally these interpreters must travel long

distances to preform services. Many LLD interpreters have expressed that these proposed

fees would drive them out of workers’ compensation and into other industries with better

compensation. Because the two-hour minimum is an industry wide standard. Because

many assignments require an interpreter to travel to the site where services are to be

rendered. Because the free hand of the market should prevail.

8. §9938. Interpreter Billing Requirements for Payment: Because Guitron v. Santa Fe

Extruders/SCIF already allows for such a declaration by the individual interpreter

providing the services. It is called an Interpreter Verification Form (IVF) Because when an

Interpreter Service Provider (ISP) is the one billing, the free-lance interpreter who

performed the services cannot sign each bill. Who am I supposed to provide this

declaration under perjury to? I am gladly willing to swear that I have presented at an

appointment and performed interpretation when that happens, but how do I go about

doing this for the dozen assignments I do a week. Also what happens when I arrive and

the injured worker is a native English speaker and the adjustor booked an interpreter

based on their name alone? Or when I arrive and the patient was already seen an hour

earlier because they got there early and the doctor didn't want to make them wait?


355

For all of the reasons listed above and more, this proposed fee schedule is discriminatory towards

Injured Workers with Limited English Proficiency, and their interpreters, all of whom have and

will continue to provide services to the State of California. We are hard working people that

simply want to make an honest living. Please reconsider this fee schedule.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

David Zaha April 12, 2018

I am in complete agreement with your opinions of the CWCIA when it comes to the proposed

regulations for interpreters fees.

____________________________________________________________________________________

_

Peter J. Spalding April 12, 2018

Product Manager – Ancillary Services

Liberty Mutual Insurance

On behalf of Liberty Mutual Insurance, we very much appreciate the Division’s work to

improve these interpreting regulations. We agree interpreting is an important component of the

Workers Compensation system, and that it should be available to any injured worker (or other

stakeholder) who is unable to sufficiently speak or understand English. Our goal is to provide

the best quality interpreting at the most reasonable cost to our customers, although this has

proven challenging in the current environment. We welcome the opportunity to help spur

improvements benefiting California’s injured workers and employers.

Our data has consistently shown California’s Workers Compensation interpreting costs to be by

far the highest of any state. In 2017, California’s costs were nearly quadruple those of Georgia,

which was the next-highest state.

Even after adjusting for California’s large population of non-English speakers, its costs remain


356

disproportionately high. The United States Census1 estimates that roughly 25 million U.S.

residents over age 5 speak English less than “very well”; California accounts for roughly 6.8

million of those residents, thus 27% of the nationwide total. However, California alone

accounted for nearly half of our total Workers Compensation interpreting costs in 2017. When

compared to other states’ non-English-speaking populations, California’s per-capita interpreting

cost is 37% higher than that of Florida; 85% higher than that of Massachusetts; 94% higher than

that of New Jersey; 454% higher than that of Illinois; and more than 1,000% higher than that of

New York, Arizona, or Texas.

Unfortunately, these high costs have not corresponded to higher-quality services. We still

encounter challenges in arranging well-qualified interpreters in California. This occurs

especially often on cases that involve unusual languages or otherwise require special handling.

Although most interpreters conduct their business in an ethical manner, we continue to see a

small subset of providers submitting large volumes of questionable bills.

1 Source: United States Census, 2009-2013 American Community Survey. “Detailed Languages

Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over: 2009-2013”.

Available online at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2013/demo/2009-2013-lang-tables.html.

http://www.census.gov/data/tables/2013/demo/2009-2013-lang-tables.html





357

Common red flags include services that were never provided: services that provided by

unqualified interpreters; demands for inflated amounted in excess of the schedule; and the like.

These practices generate a large amount of litigation and other frictional costs, which do not

benefit the injured worker in any way.

In practice, many Workers Compensation interpreters are stationed at medical offices or DWC

district offices, and they interpret on multiple cases in quick succession. This practice does not

necessarily raise concerns in and of itself. However, the current fee schedule entitles

interpreters to bill for at least two hours on each case, regardless of how much time was

actually spent. This creates a perverse incentive to bill on as many cases as possible while

spending as little time as possible on each. We have seen many examples in which this has

resulted in poor-quality services to the injured worker.

With that in mind, Liberty Mutual Insurance recommends the following improvements:

The regulations should encourage and incentivize quality. We appreciate the Division’s

strong emphasis on the use of certified interpreters, although we are concerned that there

may not be enough certified interpreters available throughout the state. The draft regulations

reduce some of the perverse incentives that exist today, but we still see opportunities to do

more in this regard. We also see opportunities to clarify the provisions around unusual

languages. For a detailed breakdown of our recommended revisions, please see “Addendum

A.”

Selecting an interpreter should be a straightforward process. We appreciate that the draft

regulations include ground rules to address common areas of dispute. However, as currently

written, the draft rules are complex and unlikely to work in practice. In most situations, the draft

rules place the responsibility on the injured worker to select an interpreter. However, injured

workers in pro per cannot be expected to know where to find interpreters that meet the

certification requirements, much less understand the rules around this process. It makes more

sense to make the employer responsible for arranging interpreting, especially since employers

already have a duty to arrange for medical treatment as well as other Workers Compensation

benefits. As with any other benefit, the injured worker should be allowed to self-procure services

if an employer fails or refuses to comply with its obligations.

The fee schedule should be as simple and consistent as possible. We recognize that there are

some differences between various categories of interpreting. However, the existing fee

schedule contains unnecessary complexity that often leads to disputes, confusion, and other

unintended consequences. We see no reason why interpreting at a hearing or deposition should

be subject to an entirely separate fee structure from interpreting at a medical treatment

appointment or medical-legal exam. These services are similar enough that the fees should be

reasonably aligned with one another. For a detailed breakdown of our recommended fee

schedule, please see “Addendum B.”


358

Billing disputes should be resolved quickly and efficiently. We understand that DWC intends

to apply Independent Bill Review (IBR) to disputes over interpreter billing. We agree with that

stance, as it would significantly reduce frictional costs. However, the draft regulations make no

mention of IBR. We recommend including language that expressly applies IBR to these billing

disputes.

These improvements should help improve quality while reducing cost, which would be a win-

win for both injured workers and employers.

All references are to California Code of Regulations, Title 8.

Section Analysis Recommendation

34(c) This section modifies the existing QME regulations. The

new language helps clarify who is responsible for

arranging the interpreter. It goes hand-in-hand with

section 9931, which is discussed in more detail below.

We support this section but recommend

revisions. This section should refer to the

selection process outlined in section 9931;

however, as noted below, we do have concerns

about the selection process as currently

written.

9767.3(c)(3) This section modifies the existing MPN regulations.

However, this is a non-substantive change. Since the

interpreting regulations are being re-written and re-

numbered, the corresponding reference is also being

modified.

We are neutral on this section.

9930 This section defines the various terms pertaining to

interpreters.

The existing regulations refer to “exotic languages” but

never actually define what is considered exotic. This

often leads to disputes.

The draft regulations do not mention “exotic languages”

at all. However, they do contain a list of languages that

are subject to certification requirements: Spanish,

Tagalog, Arabic, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean,

Portuguese, Vietnamese, American Sign Language,

Eastern Armenian, Western Armenian, Khmer, Korean,

Mandarin, Punjabi, or Russian, or “other languages

authorized or designated pursuant to Government Code

sections 11435.40, 11435.35, and 68562.”

As currently written, this does create unintended

consequences with respect to their fees. See detailed

discussion below, esp. section 9936.


revisions.

The regulations should add a definition for

“exotic language interpreters” (or some

similar term) to refer to interpreters for

languages that do not appear on this list. In

addition, other sections of the regulations

should clarify how interpreters for those

languages should be handled.

See detailed discussion below, esp.

sections 9932 & 9937.


359

9931 This section outlines who is responsible for

choosing and arranging the interpreter.

We agree that there need to be rules in this area, but as

currently written, the rules are very complex and are

likely to cause confusion and disputes.

In most situations, the draft rules place the

responsibility on the injured worker to select an

interpreter. However, injured workers in pro per

cannot be expected to know where to find

interpreters that meet these certification

requirements, much less understand the rules around

this process.

We do not support this section in its current

form. We recommend the following instead.

If an interpreter is needed for any reason, the

employer should be notified upfront. The

employer should then have up to two business

days to select and arrange the interpreter. If the

employer fails or refuses to do so—or in

emergency situation in which there is

insufficient time for the employer to do so—

then the injured worker may then arrange for

his/her own interpreter.

In addition, either party may arrange for their

own interpreter at their own expense. If both

parties order an interpreter, then each will be

responsible for the cost of their own

interpreter.

This simplified process would ensure fairness

to the injured worker, while preventing the

abuses we’ve seen in the past.


360

9932 This section explains what must be done to justify the

use of a non-certified interpreter.

The new rules place a strong emphasis on the use of

certified interpreters. Historically, these requirements

have been vague at best, so we have seen many non-

certified interpreters try to abuse these provisions.

These draft rules go a long way to close these loopholes.

However, as noted under section 9930, certified

interpreters only exist for specific languages. This

section does not make clear what happens if the injured

worker needs a language that is not listed (i.e., a

language for which no certified interpreters exist).


revisions. The rules should include

provisions for how to handle “exotic

language interpreters” (as defined in the

comments above).

We are concerned that there may not be

enough certified interpreters available to

meet the demand. If a shortage does exist,

then the regulations may be quite

burdensome as currently written.

9933 This section outlines the procedural requirements for

hearings & depositions involving interpreters.

It is critical for interpreters to disclose what other

services are being provided. In practice, many

interpreters provide services on multiple cases in quick

succession, then charge a half-day minimum for each.

This creates a perverse incentive to spend as little time

as possible on each case, and it ultimately erodes the

quality of the services provided.

There is a technical issue in subsections (d)(2) and (e).

Both of these apply to both hearings and depositions,

and they contain requirements for the “hearing officer”.

However, depositions do not involve a “hearing officer”

as defined in section 9930.


revisions. Subsections (d)(2) and (e) should

clarify how depositions should be handled.


361

9934 This section outlines the procedural requirements for

medical appointments involving interpreters.

As with section 9933, the disclosure requirement is

extremely critical. In practice, many interpreters provide

services on multiple cases in quick succession, which

creates perverse incentives.

Claims administrators do not have access to the

provider’s medical file, so it is not necessarily helpful

to keep documentation in the medical file. All

pertinent documentation should be included in the

medical report provided to the claims administrator.

Also, the language around provisionally certified

interpreters is problematic. It goes without saying that

an interpreter should only be needed for cases in which

the medical provider cannot speak the injured worker’s

language. Therefore, the medical provider is in no

position to determine the skill of the interpreter.


revisions.

The language should require all pertinent

documentation to be included in the medical

report (not just the medical file). This

requirement should apply to both medical

treatment appointments as well as medical-

legal evaluations.

Also, the language around provisionally

certified interpreters should be revised so that

medical providers are not required to

determine the skill of an interpreter in a

language the provider does not speak.


362

9935 This section requires any notice of hearing, deposition,

medical-legal evaluation, “or other setting” to include

a statement explaining the right to an interpreter. This

is a fairly straightforward requirement that is easy to

implement.

We support this section as-is.

9936 This section outlines general provisions around fees,

although the fee schedule itself is in section 9937.

As noted above, it is critical that the interpreter disclose

if multiple services are being provided in quick

succession. However, as currently written, subsection

(c) would still create perverse incentives. It only

marginally reduces the incentive to spend as little time

as possible on each case, as it simply reduces the

reimbursement rate from the full rate to 75%.

Also, we question why medical treatment appointments

should have a different minimum rate than medical-legal

evaluations (i.e., one hour for medical treatment versus

two hours for med- legals). This would appear to add

complexity to the fee schedule without adding value.

We do not support this section in its current

form. Medical treatment appointments and

med-legal evaluations should be subject to

the same minimum rate.

With respect to subsection (c), we

recommend the following instead:

For multiple hearings, depositions, or

appointments during the same time period,

subsequent interpreting should be billed in 15-

minute increments based on the time actually

spent, with no minimum (or, if a minimum

does exist, it should be far lower than what is

standard).

This would be far simpler to calculate, and

would still reward interpreters who provide a

lot of services. At the same time, it would

remove the perverse incentives to spend as

little time as possible on each case.


363

9937 This section outlines the actual fee schedule,

including the new proposed codes and the

reimbursement rates for each.

On their face, these fees are significantly higher than the

current rates. We would hope that these increases would

be outweighed, or at least mitigated, by the fact that we

would no longer need to pay full price for multiple

services done in quick succession. However, it’s

impossible to gauge the net financial impact, because in

the current state, interpreters often refuse to disclose this

information. This is part of the reason why the proposed

disclosure requirements are so critical.

This proposed fee schedule would actually pay unusual

languages at a lower rate—which is problematic. In

practice, the more unusual the language, the harder it is

to find an interpreter. However, as noted above in

section 9930, certified interpreters are only available for

certain languages. When there is need for a language

that is not on the list, then by definition the interpreter

cannot be certified, therefore the billing would be paid at

the lower non-certified rate. This would make it

extremely difficult to staff those referrals.

We do not support this section in its

current form. We recommend the

enclosed fee schedule instead. These

recommendations are based on the

following:

First, the reimbursement rates should be as

consistent as possible for all types of

interpreting services. Interpreting at a

hearing or deposition is not inherently

different from interpreting at a medical

appointment. Therefore the rates should be

similar, if not necessarily identical.

Secondly, the fee schedule should allow for

higher rates for “exotic language

interpreters” (as defined in the comments

above). This is necessary to ensure that

interpreters are available for unusual

languages.

Thirdly, as noted above, the fee schedule

should remove the perverse incentive to

spend as little time as possible on each case.

Lastly, the fee schedule should be clear as to

exactly how payments should be prorated.

As currently written, the fee schedule language

is vague and open to interpretation.


364

9938 This section outlines what information must be in

interpreter billing, including the interpreter’s name,

credentials, claim number, date of service, type of

service including billing codes, language, time spent,

any additional interpretations billed during that time

period, amount billed, and declaration under penalty of

perjury.


revisions.

In order for a claims administrator to calculate

the bill, we would need to know if the bill is

for the first interpreting session in the time slot,

or if it is a subsequent interpreting session.

This requirement should be expressly outlined

in this section.

9939 This section outlines the timeframes for payment.

Existing regulations allow up to 60 days for payment

of interpreting bills. The draft regulations would reduce

this to 45 days for interpreting at medical treatment

appointments.


revisions.

For the sake of simplicity, we would ideally

prefer a single timeframe that applies to all

interpreting bills (either 45 or 60 days).

However, this is not necessarily a pressing

issue.

The larger issue is how disputes should be

handled. As noted above, we have seen a high

amount of frictional costs driven by relatively

low-dollar disputes. We recommend including

language in the regulations that expressly

apply Independent Bill Review (IBR) to

interpreter billing.

______________________________________________________________________________

Alberto Villagomez April 12, 2018

It would be detrimental to our profession if you cut our fees, pro-rate our jobs and allow non-

Certified interpreters do our job. What was the point then of becoming certified, taking CME

course and trying to state on top of our language skills and being as proficient as possible just to

see our efforts go to the trash? Especially nowadays that the price of everything is just going up

and up.

Your proposed fee schedule will not cover our travel time, parking fees, the ever increasing price

of gasoline, and business expenses in general. I’ll be not only unfair but also a slap in the face of

our profession. I’ve never heard of decreasing of salary after years of work. If any change should

be done, it must be increasing the salary accordingly to the increasing way of living. I hope you

will reconsider this proposal and do what is fair for the Interpreting profession and not for the

people behind it.


365

______________________________________________________________________________

Imelda Bueno April 12, 2018

Certified Medical Interpreter


It will require more paperwork, more jumping through hoops, more policing by judges,

attorneys, medical providers and employers, claims administrators, interpreters and

interpreter service providers

It will lead to more litigation and more payment disputes.

It waters down the requirements to provide limited English proficient (LEP) injured

workers with professional interpreters and meaningful language access, a civil right

afforded by Title VI.

It opens the state up to civil rights lawsuits like Lau v. Nichols 414 US 563 (1974).

It seeks to limit the earning potential of interpreter service providers and interpreters,

which in turn will limit the availability of certified interpreter to LEP injured workers.

It threatens to drive out professional interpreters from the workers’ compensation system.

While it can be agreed upon that in busy treatment medical facilities a one-hour minimum

might be a reasonable standard, the one hour minimum sections leave out the words “and

location” at the end of “during same time slot” as recommended by the Berkeley

Research Group (BRG) report. One-hour minimums for treatment appointments in

offices where medical providers do not service a lot of workers’ compensation cases will

lead certified interpreters to decline said appointments, allowing for “provisionally”

certified interpreters as defined in this proposal to benefit the most, to the detriment of the

LEP injured worker.

Allowing monolingual medical providers, hearing officers and adjusters to determine

who has sufficient skill to be deemed “provisionally” certified defies logic.

Pro-rating interpreter services is unfair to interpreters in isolated, rural areas and small

Appeals Boards. Interpreters are at the mercy of court calendars and medical provider

schedules. Interpreters do not make their own schedules and should thus not be penalized

when working harder in the same time period.







366


Please add language allowing for Interpreter Service Providers (ISPs) and interpreters to be

notified when an MPN chooses to provide INTERPRETING as ancillary services.

REASON:

Because doing so would provide a level playing field, permitting interpreters to assume the risk

of providing services outside the MPN. The way things are currently, interpreters are the last to








Strike “medical examinations” from the definition of 9930 (a) “Certified interpreter for hearings

and depositions”

Reason:

Because interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website who possess the medical




CHANGE TO 7 HOURS

Reason:

Because full time employees are entitled to two 10-15 minute breaks and a 30 minute or one

hour lunch, depending on the schedule. Interpreters cannot be expected to work an 8-hour day,

with no breaks. As per ASTM Standard F-2089-15 Standard Practice for Language

Interpreting, which was given to you at our meeting of November 2016, interpreting is a unique,

cognitively demanding activity that requires breaks.


REQUIRED Under §9930. Definitions:


367


(2) When appearing at a deposition, all or any part of 3.5 hours; CHANGE TO 3 HOURS and

ADHERE TO A HALF DAY MORNING AND AFTERNOON DEFINITION FOR

DEPOSITIONS, i.e: 8:30 am to 12:00 pm AND 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm

Reason:

Because the 3.5 hour half day definition works for WCAB calendar, where the start time

is 8:30 and end time is 12:00, then 1:30 and 5:00 respectively, but not for depositions which take

place in different locations. Interpreters need time for lunch, and to travel from morning to

afternoon assignments, which often take place in differing locations.

Please refer to the En Banc Decision of Guitron vs. Santa Fe Extruders/ SCIF and the Mercedes

Osuna BAK 141379 case Under §9930.

Definitions: AFTER (h) “Hearing officer” ADD: INTERPRETER SERVICE PROVIDER (ISP)

Reason:

Because the reality is that most freelance interpreters don’t bill carriers directly. Agencies do a

lot of legwork to provide interpreters for the countless events that need scheduling daily. ISPs

perform a vital function in coordinating interpreting services across the state and is mentioned

throughout the proposed document, but not defined.

The fees contained in the proposal will not be the Under §9930. Definitions:


CHANGE TO: Medical-Legal Evaluations & Consultations

Reason: Because medical-legal consultations also exist Under §9930.

Definitions: There is no allowance for MILEAGE AND TRAVEL TIME

Reason:

Because all assignments require that interpreters travel to the site where the services will be

performed. Because other providers in the system, including defense attorneys, who must travel

are compensated for Under §9930.









368

Reason:

Because it is an industry standard for interpreter professionals who reserve time for a given

service to be reimbursed no less than the minimum fee unless notified of a cancelation at least 24

hours prior to the time the service is to be provider. Unexpected cancellations are out of the

interpreter’s control.


The injured worker is required to select and arrange for the services of a certified interpreters,

but the proposal contradicts this requirement in section 9931 (4) (f):

(f) If the injured worker is responsible for selecting the interpreter, the injured worker or his/her

agent, if represented, shall promptly select the interpreter and notify the employer within two

business days of the selection, so the employer has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of

the interpreter

Reason:

Because on section 9931 (4) (f): it says that the employer has to be notified within two days that

the injured worker has selected and arranged for the presence of the interpreter, so that the

employer has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of the interpreter.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE, it is contradictory.



Reason:

Because there is no penalty for the employer failing to comply with the obligation to notify the

injured worker that the interpreter has been selected. This happens routinely. The employer’s

preferred vendor frequently fails to send an interpreter, leading to the local interpreter service

provider or certified interpreter present on site to be asked to perform the services, which in turn

are objected to by the employer, and go unpaid.


(B) At medical-legal evaluations or medical treatment appointments, if the medical provider has

a qualified interpreter on staff at the site available, that interpreter shall be used.


369

Reason:

Because this represents a huge conflict of interest. Because a staff interpreter’s ethical

requirement to be neutral and impartial will be compromised by the nature of the

employer/employee relationship. Because the medical provider will deem any “bilingual”

staff member qualified to interpret in order not to miss seeing a patient for whom the employer

has failed to comply with their obligation to send the interpreter.


All of the following requirements must be met to establish that a certified interpreter cannot be

present:

(a) A party shall contact by telephone, fax, or email at least three interpreter service providers to

request that a certified interpreter be available at the event.

Reason:

Because this requirement is too low and it facilitates the employer’s preferred vendor, who often

asks for the services of a non-certified interpreter, to shirk its due diligence to find a certified

interpreter. Ten would be a better number.


(d) A party shall keep a written record of the interpreter service providers personally contacted to

obtain a certified interpreter, including the telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses,

dates and times of each contact, and the names of the individuals who indicated that the

interpreter service provider had no certified interpreters available for the event. The written

record shall contain, if applicable, a statement that an interpreter service provide did not

respond to the inquiry made under subdivision (a) within one business day.

Reason:

Because there is no indication of enforcement or oversight. How will it be known that the

employer has complied with this obligation? How long will said records be required to exist?

Who can see said records? What is the penalty for not complying with these requirements?

Because if a certified interpreter is on site and available and states that the employer did not

contact him, he does not get to perform the services.


(f) All interpreters shall state on the record the following information: the interpreter’s full name,

whether this is the first or a subsequent interpretation during the same one-half day or full day


370

time period; the number of interpretations the interpreter has already done during the same time

period; and the total number of hearings or depositions the interpreter is scheduled to perform

during the same time period. In addition, certified interpreters shall state on the record the name

of the certifying agency or organization and the interpreter’s certification credential or badge

number.

Reason:



interpretation, etc. For example, an interpreter might go on the record initially stating

they have 2 cases. After completing the first case, they find that the other case has been

cancelled. Now they are only there for one case. Their billing would not reflect the official

record leading to billing disputes that would need to be resolved at a hearing before the WCAB,

not to mention an accusation of perjury.



Hearing officers verifying credentials is one thing. Policing of certified interpreters as set forth

by this section is an insult to the profession.



(c) The medical provider shall determine if a proposed provisionally certified interpreter has

sufficient skill to be provisionally certified to interpret in the required language.

Reason:

Because how can a monolingual medical provider needing an interpreter possibly be the arbiter

of whether a person has sufficient skill to perform as an interpreter? This is simply absurd

The interpreter profession has already provided the DIR/DWC with a work-around: on May 20,

2016, a document titled Provisionally Certified Interpreter Appeal, signed by 14 interpreting

associations, nation-wide, was sent to AD Parisotto and Staff Counsel Hersh warning about the

dangers and recommending an alternative to this misguided notion. Because this is a very

dangerous proposal that risks trampling on the limited English proficient injured worker’s civil

right to meaningful access to government services as protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964.




371

(d) All interpreters shall provide proof of identity, and if certified, proof of certification. A

certified interpreter shall present to the medical provider his/her credential with photo

identification. A provisionally certified interpreter shall present to the medical provider his/her

photo identification. The medical provider shall review the credential and/or photo identification

to verify the individual is the interpreter represented on the credential or photo identification, and

attach a copy of the credential and/or photo identification to the medical-legal exam report or

medical treatment appointment file.

Reason: Because certified interpreters are concerned about their credentials and personal

information being circulated in medical report distribution. There is enough fraud as it is with

unscrupulous noncertified interpreters and the agencies who send them posing as

certified interpreters. Because the medical provider has access to the internet and can verify the

names of the certified interpreters on the websites listings.


interpreter’s bill. Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already requires this

information. Because this places an undue burden on medical providers



(e) Interpreters shall inform the medical provider whether this is the first or subsequent

interpretation during the same one-hour medical treatment appointment time period or the same

two-hour medical legal exam time period; the number of interpretations the interpreter

has already done during the same time period ; The medical provider shall note this information

in the medical-legal exam report or medical file.

Reason:

Because frequently, scheduled assignments and the actual outcome are different. There is no way

for an interpreter or ISP to know how long an assignment is expected to last. Guesstimating how

many assignments within a one-hour period is impossible. This will be labor intensive for the

medical provider and the interpreter. The medical provider’s failure to comply may lead to the

employer objecting to pay an interpreter’s bill.


Reason:

Because interpreters should be entitled to some minimum amount in order to ensure that a

particular assignment is worth their while. The two-hour minimum is an industry wide standard.



372

Interpreters constantly have to turn down time-conflicting assignments. No interpreter will travel

over one hour and 60 miles, as in the case in many, many regions of California to be paid for one

hour of the sight translation of a court binding document, as in the case of deposition transcript

reviews, at the one hour minimum rate of $56.00! This is even less than what this proposal

allows for a “provisionally” non-certified interpreter at a medical treatment appointment (see

MTI-2) : $57.75 per hour. LEP injured workers will lose meaningful language access to workers’

compensation services when professional interpreters leave the field for greater respect, equal

pay and improved working conditions in this fast-growing industry. Interpreters are being

singled out like no other providers: why are interpreters required to pro-rate their services?

Doctors can see 5 patients in a day, or 10 or 20, as long as they bill at fee schedule.


appointment. Attorneys at the WCAB do not prorate their fees to different clients. Restaurants do

not charge less on busy nights. Jiffy-lube doesn’t charge less the more customers they service in

any given hour. This is discriminatory.

§9937. Billing Fees and Codes: Add billing code for review and signing of settlement documents

at informal settings

Reason:

It is a trend in our industry for the applicant to sign settlement documents, in the applicant

attorney’s office, to avoid delaying settlement of a case until a hearing can be set.


Reason:


Why not approach fees based on geographic location and language pair? The information for

such a solution has already been presented to the DWC both in writing and in person on several

occasions. The BRG study included a compilation of fees charged by interpreters throughout the

state. Because these fees won’t assure an adequate supply of interpreters for languages of lesser

diffusion (LLD). Many of these interpreters receive a small volume of assignments per year and

the fees must be higher in order to ensure availability to the injured worker. Additionally these

interpreters must travel long distances to preform services. Many LLD interpreters have

expressed that these proposed fees would drive them out of workers’ compensation and

into other industries with better compensation. Because the two-hour minimum is an industry

wide standard. Because many assignments require an interpreter to travel to the site where

services are to be rendered. Because the free hand of the market should prevail.

§9938. Interpreter Billing Requirements for Payment: (12) A declaration by the interpreter

stating: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this report and


373

its attachments, if any, is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” The

declaration shall be signed and dated by the interpreter and indicate the county and state in which

it was signed.

Reason:

Because Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders/SCIF already allows for such a declaration by the

individual interpreter providing the services. It is called an Interpreter Verification Form (IVF)

Because when an Interpreter Service Provider (ISP) is the one billing, the free-lance interpreter

who performed the services cannot sign each bill.

______________________________________________________________________________

Lorena Barrett April 11, 2018

Federally Certified Court Interpreter

California Certified Court Interpreter

1. §9936. Computation of Fees (d) needs to specifically give interpreters and agencies the

possibility of negotiating all terms and conditions, not just payment, such as the duration of half

day/full day, which the DWC proposal sets at 3.5 hours and up to 8 hours respectively, and

which differs from standard practice in several areas of California.

3.5 hours half days only work for WCAB calendar but not for depositions which are usually

scheduled at 10:00 and 2:00, it should be changed to 3 hrs.


that only interpreters listed on the State Personnel Board website or on the California Courts

website are allowed to interpret at administrative hearings and depositions. Strike "medical

examinations"

______________________________________________________________________________

Catherine J. Torres April 11, 2018

Court Certified Interpreter-Spanish

Licensed in California and Texas

Notwithstanding the reasonable fees ($255/$448) that have been suggested in section 9937, I

would like to make some comments. I am an independent court certified interpreter, experienced


374

in my field and dependent on the income derived from serving in this highly skilled profession,

and would like you to please note that:

There are many terms and conditions that need to be negotiated. One, for example, is that of the

DWC considering 3.5 hours as half day and 8 hours as full day. This is not workable in Southern

California because distances for independent court certified interpreters traveling from one

hearing to another can be great. Hearings are usually from 10 AM to 1 PM and from 2 PM to 5

PM. So if a hearing prolongs to 1:30, for example, there is not enough time to travel to the next

hearing. Thus, 3.5 hours should be considered a full day. That is our custom in the San Diego

area. I often travel 150 miles in one day. Travel time is another point that needs to always be

negotiable.

I suggest: up to 3 1/4 hours = half day up to 6 hours = full day.

Section 9930(a) is problematic as it states that a certified interpreter for hearings and depositions

is "an individual listed as a certified interpreter for administrative hearings, medical

examinations or state court proceedings on the Sate Personnel Board website or is listed as a

certified interpreter on the California Courts website." This can be interpreted as giving license

to a medical interpreter to interpret at hearings and depositions. I am sure this was not the

intention of the author of this subsection.

Due to that fact that these are matters that truly affect my profession as a freelance interpreter, in

addition to the fact that as a freelancer, the agencies that hire me take a substantial cut (30 to

50%) for themselves, I respectfully submit the above concerns to you.

______________________________________________________________________________

Dolores M. Righetti April 11, 2018

Certified Medical Interpreter CHI-Spanish

President – San Diego Certified Interpreters Network

On behalf of the San Diego Certified Medical Interpreters Network (SDCMIN), the purpose of

this letter is to respond to the proposed changes in the interpreter fee schedule and regulations for

2018. Our group met on April 7 to discuss the proposed changes. We aim to respond with a

coherent voice as to what we believe are the most problematic portions of the proposed changes.

The most important issue is the proposal to allow provisionally certified interpreters in lieu of

actual certified interpreters for medical and medical/legal appointments, as well as the vague

definition of what a qualified interpreter means in this context.

We collectively object to the use of any person who is not a bonafide certified interpreter to


375

provide language services in any workers compensation setting.


mandatory testing and obtain their certification in a timeframe not to exceed six months.

If they can demonstrate that they are in the process of pursuing certification, and the search for a

certified interpreter has been exhausted and documented, only then an exception could be made.

It should be noted, that medical-legal evaluations are scheduled well in advance, usually 60 days

prior to the appointment. There is absolutely no reason a certified interpreter cannot be scheduled

within that timeframe. We can also point out that treatment visits are also scheduled days or

usually weeks in advance, hence there is no valid excuse for sending a provisionally certified

person to do the job of a certified interpreter. The brokers or agencies very often choose to wait

until the day before to assign the appointments. These are the facts and they cannot be ignored.

For our profession, certification of interpreters has become the industry's best way to ensure the

safety of patients with accurate interpretation as well as adherence to a strict code of ethics that

certified interpreters are subject to. The use of provisionally certified interpreters is

comparable to allowing provisional certification for doctors to treat patients on an emergency

basis, or lawyers being allowed to practice before passing their bar exam for expediency’s sake.


language services in worker’s compensation medical/legal appointments, which can at the very

least cause incorrect reporting of injuries and symptoms in new claims with subsequent

refusal to treat injured body parts or poor outcomes from treatment, and in the extreme could

lead to medical malpractice or even cause death. A good way to avoid litigation for LEP

(Limited English Proficiency) claimants in the system is to start with the highest quality

language services available.


1. The proposed rate is a one-hour minimum. This is unrealistic. Most doctors,

insurance companies and interpreting agencies require us to reserve a two-hour

window. We must therefore insist on the current rule of a two-hour minimum to

remain.

2. There is no language about the percentage of the interpreter’s fee that interpreting

agencies charge as a commission. As it stands today, they take 30-50%. No one is

even mentioning the disproportionate ratio of the broker's commission versus the

interpreter's fee. We the interpreters are the service providers, not the agencies or

brokers. 3. There is a proposed lower rate for subsequent assignments in the same location,

leaving one to assume that is the actual rate being offered ($64.31/hour); Does the


376

medical provider also provide a discount if he sees more than one patient in the

same time slot? We see no rational argument for a reduction in rates for this scenario.

4. There is no allowance for parking fees or for mileage, which, especially for

interpreters who live and work in rural areas, in all fairness must be taken into

consideration. One of our biggest expenses is the wear and tear on our vehicles, and

we spend a lot of unpaid time behind the wheel in order to get to all the different

locations.

We assume that the goal is to ensure that LEP claimants are given equal access to quality

medical care through the services of interpreters.

It has become clear that to be an appropriate provider of those services, any individual, in

addition to being demonstrably bilingual, must have medical terminology training, understand

cultural differences, as well as operate by a code of ethics whereby both patients and medical

providers are served with the highest level of skill, professionalism, discretion and respect.

We are your greatest assets in terms of cost containment, fairness and transparency when it

comes to serving the LEP population. Please keep this in mind when you write your final fee

schedule and regulations.

______________________________________________________________________________

Hyesun Lee April 11, 2018

Certified Court Interpreter for Korean

I am a court interpreter for Korean, certified by the Judicial Council of California. Since 2005, I

have been providing language services to thousands of clients, a majority of whom were Korean-

speaking injured workers.

I strongly oppose the proposed fee schedule for interpreter services provided to injured workers

in their legal proceedings based on the following reasons:

1. With the proposed fee schedule which is hopelessly removed from the market rates, it will be

difficult to retain a certified court interpreter. They will simply accept assignments which are not

work-comp related. These unrealistic fees create such a great gap between the work comp sector

with the rest of the sectors such as personal injury or civil litigation. With the fees so much lower

than the industry standard rates, language agencies will have no choice to hire non-certified, less

qualified interpreters who are willing to accept the low rates.

2. The right of an injured worker to meaningful communication can be infringed if a non-

certified interpreters’ services are used. A non-certified interpreter will not have the right


377

training, qualifications, skill sets, and experience to interpret properly in a legal setting where

nothing should be omitted, added, or paraphrased with his/her own words. With a claim based on

sexual harassment in a workplace, for instance, nuances and the exact words exchanged can be

extremely important in determining facts. Using an interpreter not qualified to handle those

subjects can potentially alter the outcome of a case.

3. It is against the principle of market-based economy. Based on the principle of supply and

demand, interpreter fees have been pretty much established among the insurance companies,

language agencies, and interpreters. The same attempts to establish much lower fees are not

being made in terms of doctors’ fees, attorneys’ fees, court reporters’ fees, and so on. This is

extremely unfair for the interpreters. As intellectual workers, certified interpreters go through

years of rigorous training and take a test which is very difficult to pass. Knowing two languages

does not make someone a professional interpreter. Interpreting requires unique skill sets, and it is

especially true with Korean language interpreters when the linguistic gap between English and

Korea is so great. This explains why all certified court interpreters for Korean (I know only one

person who is an exception to this.) hold minimum of four-year college degrees, many of them

master’s or doctorate degrees.

Based on the reasons stated above, I oppose establishing a fee schedule for interpreting services.

The new lower rates will serve a single purpose of benefiting the insurance companies. It will not

help ensure the rights of injured workers and it violates the principle of market-based economy.

______________________________________________________________________________

Felipe Liceti April 11, 2018

I don’t agree with the new regulation. They want to pay us less than market rate. It’s unfair.

______________________________________________________________________________

Mina Thorlaksson April 11, 2018

Administrative Hearing Certified Interpreter

On page 9 of §9930. Definitions (f) (2) it fails to include “appearing at the review, translation

and signature of a C&R, Stipulations with Request for Award, Job Analysis,” etc. Those services

can take as long as a deposition as most of the times they include multiple attachments including

lengthy Medicare Set Aside documents, Special Needs Account documentation, etc. and should

be considered as half day services, and up to 3 hours.

Likewise with the reading of a deposition transcript: If half a day is allocated for a deposition,

the same amount of time should be allocated for the reading of the transcript.


378

Regarding §9931: I see numerous problems with the whole section of defining and selecting an

interpreter. In my opinion a certification (court, administrative, medical, etc.) is a matter of

passing a test to validate the knowledge necessary to perform the role of an interpreter. No

everyone who is bilingual (or a polyglot), has the aptitude to be an interpreter. Certified

interpreters have to go through rigorous training, testing and continuing education programs to

be able to maintain their certification and improve/updated their skills. There is technique,

knowledge but also ethical principles that must be upheld. It is like having a driving license,

either you have it or you do not. One may have been driving around for a while without it, but if

one cannot pass the exam it is because one does not have the knowledge to do so. There are

many certified interpreters in California and they should be the ones doing the work. Having a

court officer, a physician or an adjuster “deem” someone qualified for interpreting is ludicrous as

they are the ones needing the interpreter and therefore not able to determine the ability and

knowledge of such interpreter as they do not speak the language. Injured workers deserve to have

certified physicians, certified lawyers and certified interpreters.

I oppose section 9931 as it authorizes Hearing Officers, adjusters and physicians to provisionally

certify an individual after only three unsuccessful attempts to find an available certified

interpreter. More attempts should be made to locate a certified interpreter. I also strongly oppose

section 9932(a)(3) which gives adjusters the authority to choose non-certified interpreters just

because they authorize it. This section basically gives carte blanche to those professionals to use

non certified people to the detriment of certified interpreters and injured workers.

Regarding fees proposed I understand there are several geographical areas in California. My

point relates to Santa Barbara county and the availability of certified interpreters. This is a small

area with very few certified interpreters. The rate of $255 for half day (morning until noon)

seems fair, but it is not fair if it needs to be reduced when we appear for more than one case. We

often appear for 2 cases for two different Language Service Providers. Why should they be

entitled to a reduced rate only because only one local interpreter is available to appear at the

WCAB? It does not seem fair. Additionally, we may have 2-3 cases in one given day but no

other cases the rest of the week.

In the case of medical treatment appointments the suggested rate of $86.50 per one hour

minimum is out of touch with reality. Interpreters need a minimum of 2 hours at a minimum of

$75/hr. as most of the first hour is spent filling out paperwork and in the waiting room. It is true

that many medical offices schedule patients every 15-20 minutes but many times we find

ourselves there for over two hours for one medical treatment appointment. Similar comment with

the medical legal exams/evaluations. We are all aware that QME, PQME, AME, IME,

Psychiatric/Psychological evaluations last over two hours. The patient questionnaires are

sometimes 20 pages long with, personal, medical and work history. Many times tests are

performed not only by the physician but by their assistants that require the presence of the


379

interpreter. Most psychological evaluations are booked for full day and require the interpreters to

spend endless hours interpreting multiple tests such as the MMPI and others.

Additionally, mileage and travel time should be included in the language section regarding fees.

On a final note, the whole text fails to include Language Service Providers along with

interpreters.

______________________________________________________________________________

Caterina Cruz Bruzzone April 11, 2018

California Certified Court Interpreter

Spanish #301345

As a California Certified Court Interpreter who makes a living providing interpreting services for

Workers’ Compensation Claimants, I would like to address two main points of the proposed

Interpreter Fee Schedule:







website are allowed to interpret at administrative hearings and depositions.

Failure to revise these two issues will affect the earning capacity of Certified Interpreters like

myself, therefore decreasing the availability of professionals, giving way to the use of Non

Certified Interpreters, which we have already witnessed as a trend nowadays, who are willing,

and able to work for lower fees. This not only affects the End User (Claimants), but the market in

general, and it is a dishonest use of state funds, just for the sake of being cost effective.

______________________________________________________________________________

Ya-Nan Chou April 11, 2018

California Court Certified Mandarin Interpreter

U.S. Federal Court Approved Interpreter


380

I have the following two comments about the recently proposed regulations for interpreters' fees

in workers comp matters:








The mention of interpreters certified for medical examinations in this section might be construed

as them being allowed to interpret at hearings and depositions and needs to be clarified

according to the California state law.

______________________________________________________________________________

Vesna P. Loek, JD April 11, 2018

Certified Cambodian/Khmer Interpreter

I wanted to share my thoughts and recommendations regarding two areas of concern below:


possibility of negotiating all terms and conditions, not just payment, such as the duration of

half day/full day, which the DWC proposal sets at 3.5 hours and up to 8 hours respectively, and





______________________________________________________________________________

Alexander Diamonds April 11, 2018

Administrative Certified Interpreter


381

I am requesting that the Interpreters Regulation do not make any changes to the rates and current

payment structure of what is paid for Interpretation services.

I have been an interpreter since 2000.

My life depends on the revenues I generate from my interpreting services. I have invested a lot of

money in order to continue to provide interpreting services to this industry.

I am one many that are in the same circumstance.

Please do not reduce or change the current interpreter fees charged as that would be a

tremendous blow to our industry that is already having many changes in available work.

I look forward to your allowing our fees to stay the same, as they have not gone up with

inflation.

______________________________________________________________________________

Rodrigo Olguin April 10, 2018

Administrative Certified interpreter

Medical Certified interpreter

Please consider the highlighted points in red colored font as my comments and suggestions.


(c) The QME shall include within the notification whether a Certified Interpreter, as described

by Labor Code Section 5811 and subject to the provisions of section 9795.3 of Title 8 of the

California Code of Regulations, is required and specify the language. The interpreter shall be

arranged by the party who is to pay the cost as provided for in section 5811 of the Labor Code.

(c) The QME, after inspecting the interpreter’s certification badge and I.D. shall state in the

notification whether a Certified Interpreter as described in Labor Code section 5811 and subject

to the provisions of California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 9930(b) and 9934 is

required, and, if so, the language to be used. The employer shall select and arrange for the

presence of the interpreter as provided in California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9931(d)

and pay the cost of the interpreter as provided for in section 5811 of the Labor Code.



382

(a) “Certified interpreter for hearings and depositions” is an individual listed as a certified

interpreter for administrative hearings, medical examinations [medical interpreters ARE NOT

qualified to interpret at “Legal” settings, thus the words “medical examinations” should be

deleted, or state court proceedings on the State Personnel Board website at

http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/Interpreterlisting or is listed as a certified interpreter on the California

Courts website at http://courts.ca.gov/programs-interpreters.htm in one of the following

languages: Spanish, Tagalog, Arabic, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Vietnamese,

American Sign Language, Eastern Armenian, Western Armenian, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin,

Punjabi, or Russian, or other languages authorized or designated pursuant to Government Code

sections 11435.40, 11435.35, and 68562. Federal Certified Interpreters ARE qualified to

interpret at medical appointments and thus the website for this category of interpreters should be

added.


Change to seven (7) hours, yes interpreters also need a break.



before an assigned hearing officer, or other similar settings determined by the Administrative

Director to be reasonably necessary to determine the validity and extent of injury to an injured

worker, or issues related to entitlement to benefits, to include the translation of settlement

documents and Job Analyses. [To be added]



(a) Certified interpreters in the languages set forth in sections 9930(a) and (b) shall be used,

except when a certified interpreter cannot be present, as provided in section 9932, after

exhausting the selection procedures of this section.

The requirements of this subdivision shall not apply to a first medical treatment appointment

where the delay to obtain a certified interpreter may pose an imminent and serious threat to the

injured worker’s health.

Does this mean that a qualified interpreter can be used at any and all “First Medical

Treatment” appointments?

(b) Hearings. The injured worker OR HIS/HER AGENT, IF REPRESENTED shall select and

arrange for the presence of an interpreter. (Suggested added language for clarification).




383


For accepted claims and claims under investigation pursuant to Labor Code section 5402,

interpreters shall be selected and arranged for as follows:

(1) If the injured worker is not a covered employee, as defined in section 9767.1(a)(2), in a

Medical Provider Network (MPN), the injured worker OR HIS/HER AGENT, IF

REPRESENTED shall select and arrange for the presence of the interpreter. (Suggested added

language for clarification).

(2) If the injured worker is a covered employee in an MPN that does not include an ancillary

interpreter provider service, the injured worker OR HIS/HER AGENT, IF REPRESENTED shall

select and arrange for the presence of a certified interpreter in the required language, who is

available at reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area. (Suggested added

language for clarification).

(3) If the injured worker is a covered employee in an MPN that includes an ancillary interpreter

provider service that offers certified interpreting services in the language required, and there are

certified interpreters in that language available at reasonable times and within a reasonable

geographic area, the injured worker OR HIS/HER AGENT, IF REPRESENTED must select and

utilize an individual interpreter or interpreter service from the ancillary service provider list. If

individual interpreters are listed by the interpreter provider service, the injured worker shall

choose which certified interpreter to use. All interpreters provided through an MPN ancillary

interpreting service provider must be certified as defined in section 9930(b). The employer shall

arrange for the presence of the employee-selected interpreter at the medical treatment

appointment. (Suggested added language for clarification).

(4) If the injured worker is a covered employee in an MPN that includes an ancillary interpreter

provider service that does not have certified interpreters available in the required language, at

reasonable times and within a reasonable geographic area, the injured worker OR HIS/HER

AGENT, IF REPRESENTED shall select and arrange for the presence of a certified interpreter

in the required language outside the MPN, who is available at reasonable times and within a

reasonable geographic area. (Suggested added language for clarification).

(f) If the injured worker is responsible for selecting the interpreter, the injured worker or his/her

agent, if represented, shall promptly select the interpreter and notify the employer within two

business days of the selection, so the employer has sufficient time to arrange for the presence of

the interpreter. If the event is set to occur within the next two business days, the injured worker

or his/her agent, shall notify the employer of the selection of the interpreter, on the same day the

arrangement for the event was made.


384

(g) Employer Obligation to Notify Injured Worker of Interpreter Selection. If the employer is

responsible for selecting the interpreter, the employer shall notify the injured worker or his/her

agent, if represented, at least two business days prior to the time for the interpretation by

telephone (with voice mail message if no answer), e-mail, or text message that a qualified

interpreter has been selected and will be present at the event. If the medical treatment

appointment scheduled to occur within two business days of the employer becoming aware that

an interpreter is needed, the employer shall immediately contact the employee in a manner listed

above that a qualified interpreter has been selected and will present at the event.


(1) If the party responsible for selecting the interpreter is unable to arrange for the presence of a

qualified interpreter, or if the employer fails to provide the notice required by subdivision (g), the

other party may arrange for a qualified interpreter to be present and that interpreter shall be used.


(A) At hearings, the hearing officer shall determine if a qualified interpreter is available on the

premises meeting the requirements of this Article, and if so, that interpreter shall be used.

(B) At medical-legal evaluations or medical treatment appointments, if the medical provider has

a qualified interpreter on staff at the site available, that interpreter shall be used.

I strongly oppose to the use of the doctor’s staff to do the interpreting, this is a serious



(d) A party shall keep a written record of the interpreter service providers personally contacted to

obtain a certified interpreter, including the telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses,

dates and times of each contact, and the names of the individuals who indicated that the

interpreter service provider had no certified interpreters available for the event. The written

record shall contain, if applicable, a statement that an interpreter service provide(r) did not

respond to the inquiry made under subdivision (a) within one business day. [Spelling]


(a) Certified interpreters in the languages set forth in section 9930 shall be used at hearings

and depositions, except when a certified interpreter cannot be present after meeting the

requirements in sections 9931 and 9932.


385

(b) For hearings, the party requiring an interpreter must arrange for the presence of an

interpreter, except that the defendant(s) must arrange for the presence of the interpreter if

the injured worker is not represented by an attorney [Recommend to add].


(a) The notice of hearing, deposition, medical-legal evaluation, or other setting shall include a

statement explaining the right to have a qualified interpreter present if the injured worker does

not proficiently speak or understand the English language. A party designated the responsibility

to to serve a notice shall include the statement in the notice. [Spelling]



(5) American Sign Language. Fees for interpreter services in American Sign Language at

hearings shall be governed by California Code of Regulations, title 8, Article 1.3, “Public

Disability Accommodations”, Chapter 4.5, commencing with section 9708.1 et. seq.

(6) Languages “Other than Spanish” should be billed at the pre-established market rate for each

particular language. [Suggest to add]


(4) Interpretations at second or successive medical treatment appointments or medical-legal

evaluations at the same location that overlap with the first interpretation time period but are not

completed during the first interpretation time period, are considered separate, billable, time

periods, to which the interpreter is entitled to bill an additional one-hour or two-hour fee,

respectively. [Add for clarification].

(c) Computation of Billing Fees at Multiple Hearings, Depositions, Medical Treatment

Appointments, or Medical-Legal Exams During the Same Time Period.

(1) Fees for interpreter services for the second and each successive interpretation during the same

time period and for the same claims administrator as the initial interpretation shall each be billed

at 75% of billing rate of the first interpretation, as set forth in section 9937. The total fee amount

owed to the interpreter for all interpretations done during the same time period is the total of the

first interpretation fee plus 75% of that fee for each additional interpretation during the same

time period. The total fee amount shall then be divided by the number of interpretations done

during the same time period. The resulting dollar amount is the interpreter fee owed for each

interpretation done during the same time period. The interpreter shall bill each claims


386

administrator based upon the number of interpretations done for that claims administrator during

the same time period. [Add for clarification].

There is no mention of any compensation for travel time or mileage, this should be added back

in.

_______________________________________________________________________

Mariana Bension-Larkin April 10, 2018

Spanish CA and Federally Certified Court Interpreter

ATA Certified Translator English to Spanish

Although §9936. Computation of Fees (d) states that "Nothing in this section precludes an

agreement for payment of interpreter services, made between the interpreter or agency for

interpreting services and the employer, regardless of whether or not such payment is less than, or

exceeds, the fees set forth in this section and section 9937," the proposal also needs to

specifically give interpreters and agencies the possibility of negotiating all terms and conditions

(not just payment), such as the duration of half day/full day, which the DWC proposal sets at 3.5

hours and up to 8 hours respectively, and which differs from standard practice in several areas of

California.

Something else in the proposal that should be rewritten is found under §9930(a), which states

that a certified interpreter for hearings and depositions is an individual listed as a certified

interpreter for administrative hearings, medical examinations, or state court proceedings on the

State Personnel Board website or is listed as a certified interpreter on the California Courts

website." The mention of interpreters certified for medical examinations in this section might be

construed as them being allowed to interpret at hearings and depositions and needs to be

clarified, since most likely this is not what the authors of this proposal intended.

______________________________________________________________________________

Professor David J. Chetcuti April 10, 2018

Just a few short comments and questions:

1. Are exotic languages to be paid at a different rate? If so, what exactly constitutes an exotic

language?


387

2. In the real world an unrepresented injured worker simply does not know they must contact the

employer at least two days in advance and provide the identity of the interpreter they selected. In

fact, they don't even know how to find a qualified interpreter. Medical care should not delayed,

especially due an injured worker's unfamiliarity with the rules and regulations. In such a

circumstance where an employee does not advise the employer of their interpreter selection

within 48 hours of the medical appointment, will the employer have the legal authority to select

and schedule the interpreter in order to save the medical appointment?

3. Often medical providers and QME physicians do not have someone on staff to interpret but

they do have a list of outside interpreters they may contact when no arrangements were made by

the parties for an interpreter to be present. Should an interpreter fail to appear can the provider

arrange for an outside interpreter if they have no one on staff qualified to perform the

assignment?

______________________________________________________________________________

Rodney N. Vosguanian, Esq. April 10, 2018

Bruce C. Vosguanian, Esq.

Vosguanian & Vosquanian

As an active member of the State Bar of California for 38 years and of the Supreme Court of the

United States in good standing, I am dismayed to have to write this letter in opposition to the

changes once again being proposed to the Interpreter's Fee Structure. Foreign language

interpreters are professionals with extensive training in their field and in many cases experienced

in interpreting for many different venues besides Worker's Compensation matters such as Civil

and Criminal Court cases, Arbitrations, Depositions, Hearings, Medical Examinations, and other

Administrative and Legal matters. Many of them have interpreting experience for decades and

are highly regarded in their field.

For the most part, compensation for interpreting assignments, whether for private insurance

carriers or workers compensations cases have not kept up with wages or pay structure in other

fields. The fees paid for assignments are still the same rates paid thirty or more years ago! There

are no unions to protect interpreters rights or working conditions. By and large, Interpreters are

independent contractors who are called upon to show up for an assignment at a specific time and

place, in most cases without advance notice, and be punctual. It is a stressful job and requires

superior concentration, sometimes for hours, to interpret accurately, precise and be articulate.


388

Interpreters are responsible for their own transportation to assignments and often drive over one

hundred miles daily. There is no compensation for vehicle use, wear and tear, tire replacement,

gas or other driving expenses. They alone bear the burden for these expenses.

The interpreters are an integral part of any legal proceedings just as much as attorneys, adjusters,

court reporters and other court officials. The legal system cannot function effectively without

highly trained and experience interpreters. The notion that they should suffer a pay reduction to

compensate for other unrelated causes in the Workers Compensation system is unjust and unfair

and shall result in inferior quality work and unreliable participants. The costs for administering

the Workers Compensation system is diverse and the burdens of such should not be unfairly or

disproportionately placed upon the Interpreters. Cost control and overruns must be shared by all

those in society and should be fair and equitable to all who work in the industry.

______________________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Santiagos April 9, 2018

Spanish Interpreter

As a freelance CERTIFIED HEALTHCARE INTERPRETER™ professional (certified through

CCHI), with the majority of my work being in workers’ comp, I am very concerned about

multiple points within the proposed interpreter fee schedule. Significant improvements must be

made to the fee schedule in order to ensure that limited English-speaking injured workers are

provided with competent, certified interpreters throughout the worker’s comp system, including

medical treatment appointments, med-legals, administrative and legal appointments.

Although this new proposal has increased hourly rates from the measly $52/hr in the 2015

proposal, it still doesn’t make adequate provision for interpreting agencies (LSPs) who usually

bill the insurance carrier at a higher rate (the market rate). It also doesn’t take into account the

variety of rates which differ based on what particular language is being interpreted. These LSPs

provide a valuable service that many parties depend on – this includes independent contractor

interpreters like myself, as well as providers, patients, employers, attorneys and adjusters.

Independent contractors like myself depend on agencies to receive appointments, coordinate,

schedule, confirm, bill, collect, follow up, file liens and/or petitions, research labor codes for

billing and respond to the denials of payments, or show up to lien conferences and trials. We

simply can't do it all. Agencies have a very important role in this industry, and they provide a

valuable service and must be taken into consideration when fees are discussed.

In addition to lacking language that allows for billing the market rate, the proposed fee schedule

does not mention travel time or mileage reimbursement, which should be included.


389

Additionally, under the billing section, it states that the minimum for a med-legal is 2 hours, and

for a med treatment appt only a 1 hour minimum is permitted. I don’t find these time frames to

be realistic or fair to independent contractors. Many med-legals take from 3 to 5 hours, or if they

are psychological evaluations up to 8 hours. Treatment appointments easily can take up to 2

hours with wait time factored in.

I also firmly oppose section 9931 which authorizes adjusters, physicians, hearing officers and/or

by agreement of the parties to provisionally certify an individual after only three unsuccessful

attempts to find an available certified interpreter. I also strongly disagree with section 9932(a)(3)

which gives adjusters the authority to choose non-certified interpreters just because they

authorize it. NO non-certified interpreter should be used at any point for any reason. There are

plenty of certified interpreters in our State to reduce the search to only three attempts.

Also, certified interpreters go through rigorous training, exams and continuing education

programs to be able to maintain our certification and improve our skills. How can a person such

a judge, attorney, doctor (or much less an adjuster) who doesn't speak the foreign language be

qualified to qualify just anybody to interpret? There are State and National associations that exist

for that purpose. Not only will this end the quality standards and completely undermine the

interpreting profession but, most important, this measure will be a disservice to the injured

worker who completely depends on competent interpreters to convey his concerns, testimony,

symptoms and so much more. Many injured workers have already been abused by their

employers, suffered permanent disabilities (that may affect them for the rest of their lives in

addition to limiting their earning capacity) and their benefits have been greatly reduced in the

past, but now this measure will deprive them from real due process. What is left after that? And

what about the legal consequences of having a less than adequate interpreter? Lawsuits, appeals,

and legal actions can and will occur just because this proposal seemed more "cost effective".

Injured workers are entitled to be represented by a licensed attorney and treated by licensed

physicians. By denying them from having a certified interpreter, their rights are being violated

since their attorneys and physician's communication (and hence their professional services) will

be compromised with the use of an unqualified interpreter. This makes no sense at all.

Please carefully consider these points and make the necessary improvements.

______________________________________________________________________________

Candelario de Funes April 5, 2018


390

Is there an official reason for why the interpreter fee schedule is being updated?

______________________________________________________________________________

Goli Khatibloo April 4, 2018

Certified Persian Interpreter

I am writing in response to the Interpreter Regulations that are being proposed by the DIR; the

conditions and fees set forth by this proposal are insulting to interpreters of all languages.

I am unable to address all the conditions mentioned in the proposal, so I’d like to refer to one that

pertained to a recent experience I had. Section 9931, Selection and Arrangement for Presence of

Interpreter, states that arrangements for another interpreter may be made if a certified interpreter

is not available. I was contacted by an agency to appear at one of the WCAB locations in Orange

County two days ago and I was available. However, I did not get the job because they said the

insurance company was unwilling to honor my fee. Therefore, a non-certified, provisionally

qualified interpreter chosen by the insurance company was used instead. This alone is in

violation of the proposed regulation because a certified interpreter was available to appear but

was overlooked due to insurance company greediness. This is just one example of many, which I

am sure other agencies and interpreters have encountered. Insurance companies do not seem to

realize that the experience and expertise of certified interpreters is crucial to matters concerning

worker’s compensation. It takes only one unqualified interpreter to translate a word or phrase in

error, thereby causing severe consequences for the worker.

As one of only 10 certified interpreters of the Persian/Farsi language in the state of California, I

consider it inappropriate to bundle our language and fees with the more popular Spanish

language and force us to charge the same rates as they do. Spanish interpreters work on a daily

basis, which is not the case for my language; it is unjust to use Spanish as the foundation for

setting these rates. I believe this to be an extremely unfair proposal and one that will drive away

certified interpreters from this industry, leaving the innocent worker with yet another thing upon

which they cannot rely. I have come across so many cases where the injured worker expressed

his/her gratitude to me for interpreting his/her words and complaints properly. They tell me that

interpreters were sent for them who were completely unfamiliar with medical and legal terms.

I’m beginning to wonder if that is the intent of this proposal: to drive away all the experienced

and qualified certified interpreters, only to replace them with mediocre ones who are willing to

work for pennies, have not gone through the rigorous process of taking classes and testing for

certification, in addition to take continuing education courses every year, having to pay fees and

dues, and many other expenses and challenges that are included in this realm.

I hope my thoughts and concerns will be heard by that group of people who are attempting to

pass this law, and that they will reconsider what is at stake. Please allow the interpreters to


391

continue loving their jobs and please do not deny the injured workers the right to have their

voices heard correctly.

______________________________________________________________________________

Rene (Alex) Lozano April 4, 2018

I have a question regarding the Interpreter fee schedule. Does this mean that the rates listed are

what I should be charging? Like for example for medical appointments, should I charge $86.50

for a 2 hour minimum? Or is this what the agency charges and in turn pays a much lower rate to

an interpreter?

______________________________________________________________________________

Maurice Abarr, Esq. April 4, 2018

I do not see deposition preparation time separately allocated. I take exception to this. As a solo

practitioner who does not speak Spanish, I am heavily dependent upon quality interpreters in

preparing my clients for testimony. . .whether that is deposition or trial. I usually do not prepare

my clients for depositions on the same day as the deposition. The reasons for this are: (1) the

client is being asked to resort to memory that is not adequately refreshed with a rush preparation

just before a deposition and needs at least one night "to sleep on it" so that the subconscious

processes provide additional recall of past events so that the best testimony (memory) is

provided; (2) preparing a client for a deposition (or trial) is likely the first time they have ever

undergone the experience of giving sworn testimony and they need some time to absorb the

process before being inundated with the process.

For those clients who speak primarily a different foreign language, the proposed regulations take

the position that the interpreters for the more exotic and uncommon languages will be paid the

same as the interpreters who translate from Spanish. This simply ignores the reality of the

market place. It is already difficult to find interpreters in the more exotic languages. If you limit

them to what the Spanish interpreters are paid, there will not be enough business to keep these

interpreters in the field and they will pursue other endeavors.

Limiting medical to one hour time segments is again unrealistic. This is not what happens "on

the ground". The time flow of doctor appointments are highly unpredictable and this is going to

result in pure chaos.


392

______________________________________________________________________________

Tory Kisiel April 4, 2018

Control Point Strategies, Inc.

As relates to "Computation of Billing Fees at Multiple Hearings, Depositions, Medical

Treatment Appointments", as outlined in 8 CCR 9936 (c), the resulting fees that might result

could translate into excessive rates.

It is not uncommon for an interpreter to provide 5-10 minutes' worth of interpreting in a WCAB

setting, and to then move on to another hearing to perform the same function, again at 5-10

minutes.

This is more the norm than an exception, and as an example, for a ½ day's work, with 4

successive interpretations beyond the initial one, total fees paid for the 4 hours of work would be

$1,020. This equates to over $255 per hour, simply because the interpreter went from hearing to

hearing. The fees for double, triple, and quadruple booking would equate to respective hourly

rates of $111.56, $159.38, or $207.19, all of which are inconsistent with the actual service being

provided. When compared with medical records review in the Medical-Legal setting, which

equates to $250 per hour, these rates seem excessive, especially given the significant difference

of skill between the 2 disciplines.

While interpreting is a necessary resource in the Workers' Compensation setting, the

reimbursements that can occur in the successive activity settings appear rather excessive.

Many times, parties learn of the need for an interpreter only upon arrival at the WCAB, and the

actual activity of interpreting again is limited to 10-15 minutes. This same type of issue is

encountered at physical therapy locations, where many times the facility engages an interpreter

who provides very limited interpreting to multiple patients and then bills each as if they were

solely dedicated to the patient.

I can understand the need for updating and clarifying the interpreter fee schedule, but without

consideration toward what seems to be standard practice in some of these settings, the resultant

fees will unfairly burden employers in the State of California.

It would seem more appropriate to provide a range for fees relating to the successive interpreting

activities that considers the actual time spent - such as:

· Interpreting services of less than 30 minutes: 25% of the fee schedule amount

· Interpreting services ranging from 30 - 60 minutes: 50% of the fee schedule amount


393

· Interpreting services ranging from 60 - 90 minutes: 75% of the fee schedule amount

Thank you for your consideration of this perspective and recommendation for refinement to the

schedule.

______________________________________________________________________________

Kelly M. Carroll April 3, 2018

Aghabala Jin & Carroll

There is a concern regarding interpreters that routinely sign in on multiple appearances in a

calendar slot. There are issues regarding some interpreters that sign in on over 10 matters in a

conference.

Based on your payment criteria, an interpreter who signs in on only 5 conferences will make

over $1,000 in a single calendar slot (am or pm). Again, there are known interpreters who sign

in on over 10 matters in a calendar.

It is not possible to provide adequate services as an interpreter on more than 3-4 matters in a

calendar, but it has become a cottage industry for some interpreters with interpreters setting up

work stations, lockers and designated areas where attorneys and applicants are forced to come to

them as they are providing services on multiple calendar appearances in a single time slot. It has

also created certain monopolies at the WCAB by interpreting services. Even with your

allocation of 75% on secondary services in the same time slot, the pay at 75% ($191.25) is more

than the current market rate ($165), so you have encouraged this conduct.

Just like with scaling on physical therapy services under the OMFS, you should have a scaling

system that bottoms out with zero pay after a certain number of appearances within the same

time slot. This creates a fair pay for the services provided but also creates a disincentive to

overbook by an interpreter, thereby ensuring the interpreter has not over committed and is able to

provide adequate services.

Again, your system does not help to limit the potential for overbooking, which in turn diminishes

the level of service that is provided. Create a pay scale that supports a fair wage for the services

provided, but has a ceiling to discourage overbooking, which in the end, takes away from the

services provided to the injured worker.


394

______________________________________________________________________________

Mike V. Durich, Jr. April 3, 2018

Law Offices of Mike V. Durich, Jr.

Regarding the proposed interpreting fee schedule there is no rational reason why the interpreter

should not be entitled to time and half for each hour of work or part thereof of work in excess of

8 hours in 8 CCR 9936(a)(3)(A) and (B). Under what rationale is the interpreter entitled

to less than any other working person in the State of California after 8 hours? There is none.

Regarding 8 CCR 9936(c)(1) and (2), the State of California has no rational reason for capping

the billing fees at multiple hearings, depositions, medical treatment appointments or medical-

legal exams during the same time period. The State is actually penalizing a successful

interpreter. It also is an encouragement for insurers and the State to take advantage of the

interpreter. If the insurer or the State for whatever reason does not want to pay an interpreter for

multiple simultaneous hearings, et al., then the insurer or the State has every right to hire a

separate interpreter for each hearing, et al. The interpreter should not be forced to provide a

discount to the insurer or the State.

Regarding 8 CCR 9936(d), this is fictitious as to an interpreter to increase rates, no insurer or the

State is likely to engage in such a conversation with an interpreter as they have little or

no bargaining power. The above regulations will decrease such bargaining power. However,

this is reality as to the insurers and the State as they will use this regulation to negotiate much

lower rates than advertised in 8 CCR 9937 for any interpreter who works for an agency or for

any interpreter that they want to pay less. Some insurers are now using only one agency and thus

have all the bargaining power to negotiate lower rates for the threat of losing such a

large account will devastate the agency. 8 CCR 9937 along with 8 CCR 9936(c)(1) and (2) and

8 CCR 9936(a)(3)(A) and (B) will be utilized to establish the ceiling at which negotiations will

begin. The regulation will be touted as an example of the free market at work to establish rates

but reality will be the exact opposite.

The continued decrease in payments of the workers' compensation system to the various

parties by the insurers and the State of California is going to cause even more professionals to

leave the workers' compensation system in California.

Documents

INTERPRTER FEE SCHEDULE FORUM COMMENTS · INTERPRTER FEE SCHEDULE FORUM COMMENTS 4 interpreter can be scheduled. (b) The employer shall make efforts to secure a Certified Interpreter