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. 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 If rescinded, the lien claim will return to the trial level for further proceedings.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
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. ADJ3246489 (LAO 0849769) ADJ3868191 (LAO 0851408)
Regular
Jun 14, 2011

JULIO ALCOCER vs. THE CALIFORNIA CLUB, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CHUBB SERVICES CORPORATION, NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, ONE OF CRUM AND FORSTER COMPANIES

Lien claimant L.A. Orthopedic sought reconsideration of a Notice of Intent to dismiss its lien, arguing it didn't receive proper notice of the lien conference. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as moot. This is because the administrative law judge, within the allowed timeframe, rescinded the order of dismissal. Therefore, the initial notice of intent was no longer a final order from which to seek reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantReconsideration PetitionNotice of Intent to DismissLien ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeAppeals Board Rule 10562Report and RecommendationCompromise and ReleaseSpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
1
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. 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. 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. ADJ3597207 (LAO 0846805) ADJ3855217 (LAO 0864205) ADJ4676095 (LAO 0846795)
Regular
Aug 18, 2014

MARIA C. GONZALEZ vs. UNIVERSTIY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SEDGWICK CMS

Here's a summary for a lawyer in four sentences: The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a "Notice of Allow Lien" as premature, since no final order awarding the liens had been issued. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion, vacating the May 29, 2014, "Notice of Allow Lien." This was due to the WCJ failing to note the defendant's appearance on that date and issuing inadequate notices that deprived the defendant of due process. The Board found the notices were vague and did not provide an opportunity to object, correcting the WCJ's error.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Allow LienRemovalWCJLien ClaimantsDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedCase-in-ChiefMinutes of HearingDue Process
References
0
Case No. ADJ3034844 (LBO 0392601) ADJ 4614655 (LBO 0396565)
Regular
Oct 17, 2014

ANGEL AVILA vs. PHILIPPS SERVICES CORPORATION, CIGA, SEDGWICK CMS, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of orders dismissing lien claims from several medical providers. These lien claimants argued the dismissal was erroneous because they had not abandoned their liens and deserved a continued hearing to identify witnesses. The WCAB found the Petition for Reconsideration timely and determined that lien claimants may have been denied due process if their representative left the hearing prematurely without adequate notice. Therefore, the WCAB is providing an opportunity for lien claimants to demonstrate good cause why the dismissal orders should not be affirmed, and ordering the defendant to respond to any filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimsWCJDismissal of LiensMedical Lien ManagementRepresentative AbandonmentPrima Facie ShowingDue ProcessNotice of Intention to Dismiss
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,994 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