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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ7536985
Regular
May 13, 2013

WALTER BARNETT vs. LOS ANGELES TIMES, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien. The lien claimant argued it never received the notice of intention to dismiss, but the Board found this contradictory as they had filed an objection. The Board also noted the lien claimant miscited and misrepresented relevant rules, and presented arguments previously rejected by the Board. Consequently, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the lien claimant and its representatives for frivolous conduct and misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienFailure to AppearLien ConferenceAppeals Board Rule 10562SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813
References
2
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. ADJ2303350 (FRE 0230817)
Regular
Apr 05, 2013

Benjamin Martinez vs. Boghossian Raisin Packing, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of notices to dismiss their liens, but the Appeals Board dismissed their petition as interlocutory orders are not subject to reconsideration. The Board granted removal on its own motion and intends to sanction the lien claimants' representative, AMR Group, and the lien claimants themselves (Hooty Services and Accutox) for frivolous and bad-faith actions. This intent to sanction stems from their attempt to challenge a procedural order clearly permitted by Appeals Board rules.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsNotice of IntentionDismissalRemovalSanctionsLabor CodeFinal OrderInterlocutory Decisions
References
7
Case No. ADJ1305490 (MON 0363100)
Regular
Jan 31, 2013

Gloria Jones vs. SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves lien claimant Nogales Psychological Counseling's attempt to reconsider a Notice of Intent to Dismiss their lien for failure to appear at a scheduled trial. The Appeals Board vacated its prior grant of reconsideration and dismissed the lien claimant's petition. The Board also granted removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the lien claimant and its attorney for filing a frivolous petition without reasonable justification. This conduct violated WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2), resulting in a waste of judicial resources.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intent to Dismiss LienLien ClaimantWCJCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryReinstatement of LienRemovalSanctions
References
6
Case No. ADJ6502736
Regular
Oct 19, 2011

JUAN BARCENAS vs. THE BEST MASTER ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final notice of intention to dismiss, not an actual decision. The WCAB granted removal to address the frivolous nature of the petition, as it lacked reasonable justification and wasted judicial resources. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on the lien claimant for filing this unjustified petition. The lien claimant has 15 days to object with good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Dismiss LiensLien ClaimantWCJRemovalSanctionLabor Code section 5813Reasonable JustificationFrivolous Petition
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 8,849 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