Maria Heitman — ADJ11674512, ADJ11674513

Defendant noticed applicant's deposition and arranged a certified Spanish interpreter (Silvia Esparza, MTI American) to provide both pre-deposition preparation and deposition interpreting on April 8, 2019, advising it would not pay a second interpreter. Applicant's attorney did not request Esparza's services but instead used cost petitioner On-Time Interpreting for pre-deposition preparation, then sought $225.00 for those services. The WCJ found cost petitioner entitled to payment, reasoning the statutes only required defendant to pay (not that applicant must use the defendant-furnished interpreter), and deferred remaining issues. The Board granted reconsideration and held the WCJ improperly placed the burden of proof on defendant rather than on the cost petitioner, who under section 5705 must prove its pre-deposition interpreting services were actual, necessary, and reasonable in light of section 5811(b)(2). The Board rescinded the Joint Findings and Order and remanded for further proceedings.