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. ADJ7944481
Regular
Aug 22, 2013

IGNACIO PAZ vs. BENIHANA, INC., ZURICH LOS ANGELES

In this workers' compensation case, multiple lien claimants' liens were dismissed for failure to pay the required activation fee or appear at a lien conference. Their attorney claimed they lacked notice of the conference, but evidence indicates their representative initiated the conference and was served with notice. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to consider sanctions against the attorney for filing a petition for reconsideration that appears indisputably without merit, potentially based on misrepresentation or failure to investigate facts. The Board intends to impose sanctions on the attorney for alleged bad faith actions under Labor Code Section 5813.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Declaration of ReadinessNotice of Hearinglien conferencepetition for reconsiderationbad faith actionfrivolous petitiondue process violation
References
1
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. ADJ3193987 (RIV 0037219)
Regular
Feb 26, 2009

DOUGLAS CRAWFORD vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

This case involves a lien claimant, Forensic Psychiatric Services, whose lien was initially slated for disallowance due to an unprepared representative at a conference. The lien claimant petitioned for the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) disqualification, alleging bias and an unwarranted opinion. The Appeals Board denied the disqualification petition, finding insufficient grounds. However, they granted the lien claimant's objection to the disallowance notice, rescinded it, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardForensic Psychiatric ServicesPetition for DisqualificationNotice of Intention to Disallow Lien ClaimWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgeunprepared lien representativeunqualified opinionevinced enmityWCAB Rule 10452objection to NOI
References
0
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. ADJ7863229, ADJ7863244
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

ALICIA DE RAMOS vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, BROADSPIRE SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant, California Physician Network, LLC, whose successive petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely, unverified, and improper procedure. The Appeals Board is also initiating a sanctions hearing, pursuant to Labor Code § 5813, against the lien claimant and its representative for allegedly disrespectful and bad faith conduct. The claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, did not properly object to a dismissal notice, and filed procedurally defective petitions. The Board has removed the proceedings to consider imposing sanctions up to $2,500.

Reconsideration petitionSuccessive petitionUnverified petitionLabor Code section 5813SanctionsCommissioner's conferenceRemovalLien claimantDisrespectful remarksBad faith actions
References
6
Case No. ADJ7144166
Regular

PAULINA CORTEZ vs. KOOSHAREM CORP. dba SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN RISK COMPANY, C/O ESIS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, finding it was not a final order. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the lien claimant and its representatives. This action stems from the lien claimant's failure to appear at a properly noticed conference, misrepresentations regarding notice, and violations of procedural rules, constituting bad-faith tactics. Sanctions of $1,000 are proposed jointly and severally against the lien claimant and its representatives for these violations.

Labor Code 5813Rule 10561Petition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissRemovalSanctionsBad Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsLien ClaimantUnnecessary Delay
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,099 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