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. ADJ9282101
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

FERNANDO CARMONA vs. EL TAPATIO MARKETS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

A lien claimant mistakenly entered an incorrect Lien Reservation Number (LRN) on a declaration, leading to its lien being dismissed by operation of law. The claimant seeks to correct this clerical error, arguing it should be allowed to amend the declaration due to excusable neglect. The Appeals Board vacated its prior reconsideration order, dismissing the removal petition. The Board determined the issue of whether to allow the correction should be addressed at the trial level, ensuring due process for the lien claimant.

EAMSLien ClaimantPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4903.05Clerical ErrorLien Reservation Number (LRN)Dismissal by Operation of LawDue ProcessExcusable NeglectCode of Civil Procedure section 473(b)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2011

Spadaro v. Meza

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied their motion to determine that nonparty respondents Pacific Employers Insurance Company, c/o Gallagher Bassett, and the Special Funds Conservation Committee had no enforceable workers’ compensation lien on settlement proceeds. The injured plaintiff had two workers' compensation claims from accidents in 1998 and 2004. An agreement from 2008 allowed Gallagher Bassett and Special Funds to reserve their right to assert liens on settlement proceeds from the 2004 claim. Plaintiffs argued the lien amounts could not be accurately established due to a lack of apportionment between the claims. The Supreme Court correctly denied the motion, as Gallagher Bassett only made benefit payments related to the 2004 accident, making the lien amount ascertainable. The order was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LienSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuriesApportionment of ClaimsInsurance CarrierSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeLump Sum AwardWaiver of BenefitsSupreme Court AppealCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. ADJ6792217
Regular
Apr 24, 2018

CONSTANCIO LASCANO vs. SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a lien claimant, Resource Pharmacy, whose lien was dismissed by operation of law in EAMS due to a clerical error in listing the wrong lien reservation number. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal, finding that the issue of correcting the clerical error and removing the dismissal notation should first be addressed by a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). Lien claimants are entitled to due process, including a hearing to potentially set aside a dismissal based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). The Appeals Board emphasized the policy of favoring hearings on the merits and allowing parties a chance to correct errors.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantResource PharmacyElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Labor Code section 4903.05Lien Reservation Number (LRN)Clerical ErrorDismissal by Operation of LawWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Due Process
References
10
Case No. ADJ3732289 (RIV 0053017)
Regular
Mar 19, 2013

JOHN PAPPAS vs. TNT GRADING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding disallowed medical services. The Board granted the defendant's petition, affirming the original finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury. Crucially, Finding of Fact number 4 was amended to state there was insufficient evidence to determine if the lien claimant, Poway Surgery Center, was a properly licensed facility. This amendment supports the disallowance of the lien due to a lack of proof of proper licensing.

WCABPoway Surgery CenterState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFinding of FactLien ClaimantLicensed FacilitySurgery CenterRes JudicataCCR Title 8 Section 10770
References
3
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. ADJ9558084
Regular
Apr 24, 2018

LUCINO VILLA GARCIA vs. SAMBO, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

Resource Pharmacy petitioned for removal after its lien was dismissed due to a clerical error in listing the wrong lien reservation number on a required declaration. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for removal, finding that the issue of whether to correct the error and remove the dismissal notation should be addressed first by a Workers' Compensation Judge. This approach aligns with due process rights, ensuring the lien claimant receives a hearing on whether relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 is warranted. The Board emphasized the policy favoring hearings on the merits when a party demonstrates excusable neglect.

Labor Code section 4903.05Lien claimantPetition for RemovalElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Lien Reservation Number (LRN)Clerical ErrorDismissal by Operation of LawDue ProcessFair HearingCode of Civil Procedure section 473
References
10
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

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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 3,687 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