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. 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. ADJ5814563
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

MARIA VILLEGAS vs. BURKE WILLIAMS, INC., TRAVELERS SACRAMENTO

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, unverified, and unserved. The Board also initiated removal and a notice of intention to impose a $250 sanction against the lien claimant and its representative for frivolous conduct, including filing a petition with willful misrepresentations of the record. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which formed the basis of the dismissed petition. The Board found the lien claimant's assertion of lack of notice contradicted the record, which showed service of the conference notice.

Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantRemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Due processVerificationServiceUntimely
References
9
Case No. ADJ7564894
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

FLOR DE MARIA DE LEON vs. PORTO'S BAKERY, INC, TRAVELERS

Here's a summary for a lawyer: This case involves a lien claimant, First Choice Health UBC, whose lien was dismissed for failure to provide proof of timely payment of the lien activation fee at a lien conference. While the claimant's representative appeared for "FCH" and later submitted proof of payment for a different, similarly named entity (First Choice Medical Group), no proof was provided for First Choice Health UBC itself. The WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, finding that the claimant failed to meet the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4) by not presenting evidence of activation fee payment for the correct entity at the conference, thus warranting dismissal with prejudice. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition.

Lien ClaimantActivation FeePetition for ReconsiderationDismissal with PrejudiceContinuous TraumaServerBack InjuryKnee InjuryLower ExtremitiesNervous/Psyche
References
0
Case No. ADJ3219750 (LAO 0795115)
Regular
Dec 11, 2010

RAFAELA GARCIA vs. SILVERTON LAW OFFICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded a WCJ's order to show cause why sanctions should not be assessed against lien claimant VQ OrthoCare. This order stemmed from VQ OrthoCare's litigation manager inadvertently checking the wrong box on an e-form, requesting a status conference instead of a lien conference. The Board found no legal basis for sanctions under the applicable rules, as the error was a mistake on a recently amended form and did not constitute bad faith or frivolous conduct. The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as the order was interlocutory.

Petition for RemovalOrder to Show CauseSanctionsDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLien ClaimantElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSInterlocutory OrdersRescind OrderLabor Code Section 5310
References
6
Case No. ADJ7711093
Regular
Nov 10, 2014

Fernando Sosa vs. Source One Staffing, CIGA by its Servicing Facility Patriot Risk Services, For Ullico, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was unverified. The Board also granted removal on its own motion due to the lien claimant's repeated failure to appear at lien conferences and file proper objections. This conduct, along with filing an invalid petition, suggests potential bad faith and warrants a Commissioner's Conference to determine if sanctions should be imposed. The lien claim was ultimately dismissed by the WCJ for non-appearance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando SosaSource One StaffingCIGAUllicoPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantCalifornia Physician NetworkLLCDenise Mejia
References
2
Case No. ADJ4511531 (LAO 0860156)
Regular
Dec 16, 2010

LEE HARPER vs. KING DREW MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a lien claimant, VQ OrthoCare, whose litigation manager inadvertently checked the wrong box on an electronic filing form, requesting a "Status Conference" instead of a "Lien Conference." The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) issued an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed for this error and for allegedly filing a false declaration regarding settlement. The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for removal, finding the WCJ's order to be an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision subject to reconsideration. Ultimately, the Board rescinded the order to show cause and dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the error excusable and lacking legal basis for sanctions.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to Show CauseSanctionsLien ClaimantDeclaration of ReadinessStatus ConferenceLien ConferenceEAMS
References
6
Case No. ADJ7930045
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

MICHAEL NGUYEN vs. WILLIAMS FURNACE, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded dismissal orders for lien activation fee non-payment, and is considering sanctions up to $2,500 against lien claimants and their representatives. This action stems from the lien claimants' claim of not receiving notice of a lien conference, which the Board found to be a false statement of material fact, despite evidence of proper service. The Board will proceed in conformity with a preliminary injunction against lien activation fee enforcement.

Lien activation feePetition for reconsiderationSanctionsFalse statements of factRule 10561Labor Code section 5813Hearing representativesEAMSPreliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic
References
1
Case No. ADJ4028889
Regular
Jul 10, 2013

MARIA R. BRAMBILA vs. SERVICON SYSTEMS, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration filed by lien claimant Frontline Medical Associates. The Board affirmed the dismissal of Frontline's lien because they failed to pay the required lien activation fee prior to the commencement of the lien conference, as mandated by controlling precedent. Despite Frontline's arguments regarding due process, the Board found their failure to comply with the procedural requirement was dispositive. No sanctions were issued against the lien claimant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLien Activation FeeDue ProcessWCJ ReportLabor Code §4903.06EAMSFigueroa v. BC Doering CompanyDismissal with Prejudice
References
1
Case No. ADJ7777187
Regular
Nov 13, 2012

PATRICIA ARRUDA vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SANTA CLARA, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claimant's lien for failure to appear at a scheduled conference. The lien claimant failed to respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT) after not appearing, and their petition for reconsideration did not dispute the defendant's proper proof of service of the NIT. The Appeals Board upheld the dismissal, citing the presumption of receipt of properly mailed documents and the lien claimant's failure to establish good cause for their non-appearance or for the lien to be reinstated. The Board also admonished the lien claimant for failing to comply with form requirements for their petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantDismissal of LienReconsiderationFailure to AppearNotice of Intention to DismissProof of ServicePresumption of ReceiptOfficial Address RecordPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,457 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