Since these documents were the bills themselves and not "statements concerning"
them, it would seem unnecessary not to admit them. Furthermore, the undersigned has
searched for case law on the subject and found no guidance on the subject
Recent Panel Decision
“Lastly, the Findings and Order does contain two omissions: It fails to record the
admission of two groups of documents into evidence and the rationale for the same. The
crux of the majority of these objections was that the lien claimant's bills were not signed
under penalty of perjury under Labor Code § 5703(a)(2.) However, after reviewing the
statute itself, one finds that it states that "statements concerning any bill or services are
admissible only if made under penalty of perjury . . . ." Since these documents were the
bills themselves and not "statements concerning" them, it would seem unnecessary not
to admit them. Furthermore, the undersigned has searched for case law on the subject
and found no guidance on the subject. It would seem that the statute does not apply to
the bills themselves by their terms and so the documents were admitted. The
undersigned includes language to correct this omission in the recommendation below”
§ 5703. Evidence in addition to sworn testimony
The appeals board may receive as evidence either at or subsequent to a hearing, and
use as proof of any fact in dispute, the following matters, in addition to sworn testimony
presented in open hearing:
(a) Reports of attending or examining physicians.
(1) Statements concerning any bill for services are admissible only if made under penalty
of perjury that they are true and correct to the best knowledge of the physician.
 |  |  |  |