CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. FRE 0218098 FRE 0200339
Regular
Aug 14, 2008

JOSE ACOSTA, ESMERALDA ABRIOL vs. PETERSON FAMILY and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY

In **Acosta v. Peterson Family**, the Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal filed by both the defendants and the lien claimant. This action concerns a consolidated lien proceeding with over 800 dates of service valued at over $7 million, stemming from an order compelling the lien claimant to produce specific medical documentation. In **Jacobson v. Sonoma Developmental Department**, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings at the trial level, indicating the prior decision was not final.

WCABLien ConsolidationItemized BillsOperative NotesOwnership InterestFictitious Name PermitsReconsiderationRemovalPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ1035201
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

VICTOR DURAN vs. DONUT INN, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board is considering rescinding an order that dismissed Metro Med Shockwave's lien claim for failure to pay a $\$100$ lien activation fee. The WCJ dismissed the lien because the fee was not paid before the lien conference, citing prior precedent. However, the lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a DWC Newsline article referencing a court order. The Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, allowing further proceedings on the lien claim.

Labor Code section 4903.06Lien activation feeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMetro Med ShockwaveFigueroa v. B.C Doering Co.Angelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionDWC NewslineReconsiderationRescind order
References
2
Case No. ADJ8 156794
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

NURY PEREZ vs. BLUE RIVER DENIM, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed a lien claim due to a failure to pay a $100 lien activation fee. The lien claimant, Premier Psychological Services (PPS), claims computer issues prevented timely payment. While the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, the WCAB may rescind the dismissal if PPS pays the activation fee within ten days of this notice. If paid, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06WCABadministrative law judgereconsiderationrescissiondismissallien conferenceCompromise and Releaseindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Meadows, LLC

The petitioner, Bette & Cring, LLC, sought an order under Lien Law article 3-A to examine the trust books and records of Brandle Meadows, LLC concerning the "Brandle Meadows — Senior Condominium Community" project. This demand followed an initial provision of a verified statement of trust accounts, which the petitioner deemed insufficient, requesting examination of underlying documentation. The core dispute revolved around the scope of examination permitted under Lien Law § 76, specifically whether it includes underlying documents like cancelled checks and invoices beyond just the primary trust books. The court clarified that while trust books should detail required information per Lien Law § 75, if they lack sufficient detail, beneficiaries are entitled to examine underlying documentation. Finding a discrepancy in the records provided during a September 2010 examination, the court granted the petition, directing the respondent to produce complete trust books or records as mandated by Lien Law § 75 within 10 days.

Lien LawTrust FundsBooks and Records ExaminationStatutory InterpretationMechanic's LienVerified StatementArticle 3-ABeneficiary RightsScope of ExaminationFiduciary Duty
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. ADJ716826 (VNO 0465033)
Regular
Feb 03, 2012

Frances Welch vs. East Ventura Medical Group, The Hartford

This case concerns a lien claim filed by Center for Orthopedic Surgery (COSI) for medical treatment provided to Frances Welch. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision barring COSI's lien. The Board found COSI's lien was filed outside the six-month limit from the final award issuance, despite their argument that timely billing and lack of settlement document service should toll the statute. COSI's inaction for seven years after partial payment, without filing a lien, precluded any claim of tolling. The Board clarified that partial payment does not obligate the defendant to serve the provider with all settlement documents if no lien is on file.

Labor Code section 4903.5lien claimantCenter for Orthopedic SurgeryPetition for ReconsiderationtollingLabor Code section 4904(a)Stipulations with Request for Awardpermanent disabilitystatute of limitationsLabor Code section 4903.1(c)
References
0
Case No. SBR 0311342
Regular
Mar 07, 2006

JOSE R. FRANCO vs. CLA-VAL GRISWOLD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the defendant is estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense against a lien claimant. The defendant had notice of the lien claimant's claim, as evidenced by settlement documents and a lien affidavit, and failed to serve the claimant with settlement documents as required by law. This failure to provide proper notice and an opportunity to be heard to the lien claimant precludes the statute of limitations defense.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatute of Limitation DefenseEstoppelLien ClaimantDue ProcessCompromise and ReleaseNotice of LienOpportunity to be HeardLabor Code section 4903.5Labor Code section 4904
References
2
Case No. ADJ7016910, ADJ7016880
Regular
Jan 25, 2017

DENNIS LEBER vs. HOWARDS APPLIANCES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a lien dismissal for non-payment of a $100 activation fee. The lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay based on a federal court order and a DWC Newsline. The Appeals Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, based on the interpretation that the federal court order allowed payment between November 9 and December 31, 2015. If the fee is paid, the lien claim will proceed to the trial level.

Lien activation feeLabor Code § 4903.06Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimDWC NewslineU.S. District CourtPreliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerDIR Newsline
References
1
Case No. ADJ7271033
Regular
Jan 25, 2017

JENNIFER LAWSON vs. GLEN IVY DAY SPA, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed lien claimant Proex Diagnostics' lien for failure to pay a \$100 activation fee. Proex argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a federal court order and DWC guidance. The WCAB's notice indicates they intend to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days of the notice. If rescinded, the lien claim will return to the trial level for further proceedings.

Proex DiagnosticsGlen Ivy Day SpaCompWest Insurance CompanyBerkshire Hathaway Homestate CompaniesLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReconsiderationCompromise and Release
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,505 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational