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. ADJ8730224
Regular
Dec 15, 2016

SERGIO BERMUDEZ vs. CERRITOS AUTO REPAIR CENTER, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Tri County Medical Group's (TCMG) petition for reconsideration of a finding that its lien claim was barred by the 18-month limitation in Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board majority held that because TCMG's last date of service was January 29, 2015, after the July 1, 2013 effective date for the shorter period, the 18-month limit applied. TCMG's lien was filed over 18 months after this last date of service and was therefore untimely. A dissenting commissioner argued that for continuously provided services crossing the July 1, 2013 date, the three-year limit should apply to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code Section 4903.5(a)lien claim18-month limitation periodthree-year limitation perioddate services were providedlast date of servicecontinuously provided servicespetition for reconsiderationdenial of lienWCJ report
References
19
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. ADJ8094646
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

ALEJANDRINA BARRETO vs. OUT OF THE SHELL, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, PHARMAFINANCE, LLC, HEALTHCARE FINANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC

This case involves lien claimants PharmaFinance and Healthcare Finance Management, and their representatives Landmark Medical Management and Brian Hall, who sought reconsideration of a decision disallowing their liens for medical treatment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to notice its intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the lien claimants and their representatives. This action is due to a pattern of allegedly filing petitions containing false statements about not receiving notices, which violates the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and Labor Code Section 5813. The Board found these claims not persuasive and indicative of a tactic to avoid responsibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLien ClaimantsHearing RepresentativesIndustrial InjuryFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseNotice of IntentionLabor Code section 5813
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kevin F. v. Erickson (In re Kevin F.)

This case addresses whether liens held by creditor Eugene Erickson against debtors Kevin and Sue Higgins are avoidable under bankruptcy law. The Higginses, who borrowed $150,000 and $50,000 from Erickson secured by a mortgage and confession of judgment on their home, defaulted on their notes. They sought to avoid Erickson's liens as preferences and to protect their homestead exemption, also claiming usury on one note. Erickson attempted to challenge the dischargeability of his claim. The court determined that the Higginses lacked standing to avoid transfers as preferences but could avoid the Confession of Judgment lien under § 522(f)(1)(A) as it impaired their homestead exemption. Furthermore, the court found the usury defense waived by the Higginses' signing of the Confession of Judgment and deemed Erickson's challenge to dischargeability time-barred.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionJudicial LienPreference AvoidanceUsury DefenseDischargeabilityConfession of JudgmentPromissory NoteMortgageLien Impairment
References
48
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. Bankruptcy No. 00 B 14390(ASH). Adversary No. 00-3004A.
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2001

In Re Higgins

The debtors, Kevin and Sue Higgins, initiated an adversary proceeding against creditor Eugene Erickson concerning the avoidability of mortgage and confession of judgment liens, usury claims, and Erickson's attempt to challenge debt dischargeability. The Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York, ruled that the Higginses lacked standing to avoid pre-petition transfers as preferences under 11 U.S.C. § 547. However, the court granted the Higginses' request to avoid the confession of judgment lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), finding it impaired their homestead exemption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Higginses had waived their usury defense but held that Erickson's right to contest the dischargeability of his claim was time-barred. This resulted in a mixed outcome, largely favorable to the debtors regarding lien impairment and discharge.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionLien AvoidanceJudicial LienPreference AvoidanceUsury DefenseConfession of JudgmentDischargeabilityEquitable TollingEquitable Estoppel
References
68
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 3,699 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