Home > Uncategorized > WCAB En Banc: Cornejo Stands – no registration for attorney-hired copy services

WCAB En Banc: Cornejo Stands – no registration for attorney-hired copy services

Hello dear readers!

Your humble blogger has come up briefly for air just to bid you well and wish you a wonderful weekend.  But while I’m here (not really here, of course, just an annoying voice inside your head reading the annoying words on your computer screen) I thought I’d draw your attention, yet again, to the case of Cornejo v. Younique Café.

As my beloved readers will recall, the WCAB originally issued an en banc opinion on December 22, 2015, holding that Section 22451(b) of the Business and Professions Code does not bar unregistered copy services from collecting on their fees so long as those services were engaged by a California attorney.  Offended by this en banc ruling, the defendant sought reconsideration of the WCAB’s opinion, which was granted to further review the case, the WCAB came down again with the same result in an opinion issued on April 13, 2016.

Now, here’s the fun part: one of your humble blogger’s beloved readers pointed out that even if the Business and Professions Code section 22451 creates an exemption for copy services retained by licensed attorneys, can the DWC impose a higher restriction for workers’ compensation cases?  After all, part of the selling point of SB-863.

For example, California Code of Regulations section 9981 requires that “[b]ills for copy services must specify services provided and include the provider tax identification number and professional photocopier registration number…” (emphasis humbly added by your humble blogger).  Is the WCAB’s opinion to be interpreted that copy services need not comply with section 9981?

Likewise, section 9982(d)(2) holds that “[t]here will be no payment for copy and related services that are: provided by any person or entity which is not a registered professional photocopier.”

Part of the issue, specifically to Cornejo, is the fact that the services in Cornejo were performed before section 9982 and 9981 went into effect.  Certainly, however, we can expect to see this issue arise in the future: what happens when the next copy service shop declines to register but declines to decline to seek payment for its so-called services?

In any case, dear readers, your humble blogger wishes you a wonderful weekend and only the best of news for your Monday morning.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.