Lett: An Unsigned Transcript Was Not a Prerequisite to Deposition Attorney Fees

In Lett v. L.A.C.M.T.A., No. VNO 0378504 et al., slip op. at 3–5 (WCAB Mar. 5, 2004), the WCAB held that a reasonable Cal. Lab. Code § 5710 attorney-fee allowance did not depend on the injured worker signing the deposition transcript. The March 5, 2004 significant panel decision affirmed the judge’s ruling because the employer-requested deposition had occurred and the statute imposed no transcript-approval condition. The holding concerns fee entitlement, not a license to disregard testimony or transcript corrections.

The carrier challenged the signature, not the amount

The defendant took Lett’s deposition on May 9, 2003. Counsel sought fees, and the judge conditionally allowed $416.60. The defendant objected that the deposition was incomplete because the worker had not signed and delivered the transcript. It also invoked workers’ compensation fraud policy. The opinion notes that the defendant apparently did not object to the amount requested. See the official decision PDF at 1–2.

After a hearing and briefing, the judge concluded that no law required signature before the reasonable fee could be allowed. The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the dispute, then affirmed. That posture matters: the Board was reviewing a claimed legal prerequisite, not setting a general fee schedule or deciding the value of every category of preparation time.

The text of section 5710 controlled

Section 5710(b)(4) provides for a reasonable attorney-fee allowance for a qualifying deponent represented by a California-licensed attorney when the employer or carrier requests the deposition. The fee remains discretionary and is set by the Board. The defendant sought to add a separate condition that the statutory text did not contain.

“Labor Code section 5710 contains no requirement that an applicant must sign his or her deposition as a condition precedent”

Lett, slip op. at 3.

The quoted language at 3 continues by referring to the allowance of reasonable attorney fees. Because the deposition had been taken at the defendant’s request, the Board found the relevant prerequisite satisfied. This reasoning does not eliminate scrutiny of the fee’s reasonableness or the identity of the requesting party and deponent.

An unsigned transcript still had evidentiary effect

The opinion discussed then-existing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025(q)(1), under which a deponent could approve or decline to approve a transcript, with the prescribed consequences. It reasoned that the absence of a signature did not make the testimony vanish. Current transcript-review provisions are located in § 2025.520; the historical subdivision in Lett should not be copied into a present-day filing as though it were the current section.

Section 2025.520(f) generally gives a transcript the same effect when the deponent fails or refuses to approve it within the allotted period, subject to timely changes. Other subdivisions address notice, corrections, agreed changes to the review period, and suppression motions. The deposition expense and transcript guide separates that process from fee requests.

Why the fraud-policy argument did not change the result

The defendant relied on a criminal case involving false deposition statements. The Board distinguished that situation: the defendant had not asserted material misrepresentations in Lett’s testimony and had not shown prejudice from the missing signature. Its policy concern therefore did not justify rewriting section 5710. See id. at 4–5.

The narrow lesson is that an unsupported fraud concern cannot supply the omitted fee prerequisite. Readers should not turn the opinion’s historical discussion of particular criminal statutes into present advice about avoiding criminal responsibility by withholding a signature. Truthfulness remains essential, and any concrete concern about testimony requires individual legal advice.

Practical implications for a current fee dispute

Lett is designated a significant panel decision, not an en banc decision. It offers persuasive analysis of the signature objection. Current petitions must also satisfy Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 10547, including verification, the required written-demand interval and attachments, and identification of the attending attorney and State Bar number. A merits argument under Lett does not cure a defective petition.

For workers, keep the notice, transcript-availability communication, fee demand, response, and evidence of actual expenses together. Our workers’ compensation evidence guide places those documents in the larger claim file. Mishra X can assess whether the unresolved issue is the signature objection, the amount, or a procedural defect; each calls for a different response.

Questions readers ask