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. ADJ4297322
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

ARTURO SALAS vs. BAY CITY CONTAINERS, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their lien was dismissed by the WCJ for failing to appear at a lien conference. The lien claimant argued they filed an objection and that dismissal for non-appearance was improper under Rule 10562. Although the petition was deemed timely filed as the claimant received the dismissal order late, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition due to procedural defects. Specifically, the petition was not properly served on adverse parties and lacked specific references to the record and applicable law as required by Board rules.

WCABlien claimantpetition for reconsiderationorder dismissing liennotice of intention to dismiss lienlien conferencefailure to appearobjectionserviceLabor Code section 5903
References
12
Case No. ADJ6860509
Regular
Aug 16, 2012

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. PLS FINANCIAL SERVICES, CHARTIS

This case concerns a lien claimant, Syndicated Diagnostic Imaging, whose lien was dismissed by the WCJ for failing to appear at a lien conference and not filing a timely objection to a notice of intent to dismiss. The lien claimant argued its representative appeared, and it filed a timely objection, but the Board found the objection was filed late and lacked proof of service or filing. The Board affirmed the dismissal because the lien claimant failed to demonstrate good cause for its absence or timely object to the dismissal notice.

Lien claimantSyndicated Diagnostic ImagingPetition for ReconsiderationOrder DenyingWCJlien conferencenotice of intention to dismissgood causeobjectionhearing representative
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. United States (In Re Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc.)

This case addresses whether a New York Lien Law "trust fund" beneficiary’s claim to priority payment under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d) is preempted by ERISA. The applicant, The Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry and its Participating Funds (JIB), sought priority payment from funds held by the debtor, asserting a claim for unpaid benefits. The defendant, A-J Contracting, Inc. (A-J), challenged this, arguing ERISA preemption, specifically that the Lien Law provided an "alternative enforcement mechanism" forbidden by ERISA. The court reviewed federal preemption doctrine and ERISA's objectives, ultimately concluding that Section 71(2)(d) does not create such a mechanism as it confirms existing employer liability rather than shifting it. Therefore, the court found that ERISA does not preempt JIB's assertion of priority rights under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d).

ERISA preemptionLien Law trust fundpriority disputeunpaid employee benefitsbankruptcy estatedebtor liabilityconstruction subcontractsfederal supremacystatutory interpretationcollective bargaining agreement
References
29
Case No. ADJ270393
Regular
May 04, 2009

SYLVIA ARMENTA vs. SAN YSIDRO SCHOOL DISTRICT, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing their lien for failure to appear at a lien conference. The lien claimant argued they were denied due process because they timely filed an objection to the dismissal notice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal order, and returned the matter to the trial level. This was based on evidence showing the lien claimant did file an objection, which had not been properly matched to the file when the dismissal order was issued. The Board concluded that further proceedings were necessary to address the lien claimant's objection.

Lien claimantReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienDue processWCJExhibitObjectionProof of serviceService by mail
References
0
Case No. ADJ3711106 (MON 0347573) ADJ2131962 (MON 0350490)
Regular
Sep 16, 2010

ELIZABETH JUANILLO NAVARRO vs. JACK IN THE BOX, GALLAGHER BASSETT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns a lien claimant, Arthur Malkin, D.C., and his representative, Lee Toney, who are challenging a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions. The lien claimant contends he was misadvised and did not receive a necessary report from the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The Board has provided the missing report and granted an additional 10 days for the lien claimant to file further objections to the $250 sanction. Failure to show good cause within this extended period will result in the imposition of sanctions under Labor Code section 5813.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsLien claimantArthur Malkin D.C.Lee ToneyPetition for RemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813Sanctions
References
0
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. ADJ7348520, ADJ7343936, ADJ7321306
Regular
Oct 25, 2016

Mauricio Arciniega vs. Santa Monica Seafood Company, Compwest Insurance Company

This case involves a lien claimant, Med-Legal Photocopy, seeking payment for subpoenaed medical records. The defendant objected to the lien on grounds of unreasonable necessity, but their objections were untimely and inadequately raised. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision disallowing the lien and remanded the case. This will allow the trial judge to determine the amount due to the lien claimant, as the defendant is precluded from objecting to the reasonableness and necessity of the expenses due to their procedural failures. However, the cost of a consultative rating obtained by the lien claimant is not a recoverable medical-legal expense.

Med-Legal PhotocopyReconsiderationDisallowed LienContested ClaimLabor CodeMedical-Legal ExpensesSubpoenaReasonablenessNecessityObjection
References
6
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. ADJ3533713
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

JUANA LOPEZ vs. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removed this matter for the purpose of imposing sanctions. The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration filed by SIR Practice Solutions, LLC on behalf of several lien claimants was skeletal, unintelligible, and violated multiple WCAB rules regarding evidentiary and legal support. The lien claimants and SIR Practice Solutions, LLC failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions within the allotted time. Therefore, the WCAB imposed sanctions of $250.00 against each individual lien claimant and found SIR Practice Solutions, LLC jointly and severally liable for these sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLien ClaimantsSIR Practice SolutionsPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rule 10846Labor Code Section 5813Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,453 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