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. ADJ1740444 (SJO 0799313) ADJ2189376 (SJO 0785376) ADJ506041 (SJO 0866217)
Regular
May 13, 2011

EDUARDO JIMINEZ vs. DSL TRANSPORTATION, ARGONAUT INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petitions for reconsideration regarding findings of industrial injury and permanent disability ratings. However, the Board granted the lien claimant's petition, reversing the dismissal of its attorney's fee lien. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the value of the lien claimant's services, with defendants ordered to withhold 15% of the applicant's awards for potential attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Orders DenyingGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityBenson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Permanent Disability Rating ScheduleIndependent Medical Examiners132a Claim
References
3
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. ADJ6117605
Regular
Sep 13, 2011

ALFONSO ALCARAZ vs. HRONIS, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimants Dr. Payman and Silver Orthopedic Center sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order disallowing their liens, alleging newly discovered evidence. Their petitions were dismissed as moot because the original order had been rescinded, and also found untimely and "skeletal" for failing to adequately state grounds or evidence. The Appeals Board is now removing the case for potential sanctions against the lien claimants due to the frivolous nature of their petitions. The Board intends to impose a $250 sanction on each claimant unless they demonstrate good cause to the contrary.

RemovalSanctionsReconsiderationLien ClaimantSkeletal PetitionUntimely PetitionMootNew EvidenceLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561
References
29
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. 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. 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. ADJ7562912
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

PEDRO LOPEZ vs. The Peninsula Beverly Hills (The Belvedere Hotel), Gallagher Bassett

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that sanctioned the lien claimant $750 for filing a frivolous Declaration of Readiness to Proceed. The Board found the lien claimant acted in violation of regulations but is deferring a final decision pending a hearing on a motion to consolidate numerous similar cases. This consolidation motion, if denied, will allow the current case to proceed with potential sanctions, and the Board noted potential future disciplinary actions for lien representatives.

Declaration of ReadinessDORfrivoloussanctionlien claimantPetition for Reconsiderationrescindedtrial levelconsolidationlien representative
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alibrandi Building Systems, Inc. v. Wm. C. Pahl Construction Co.

This case concerns an appeal stemming from a Lien Law article 3-A lien foreclosure action. Defendants, comprised of various Iron Workers' Funds and Union entities, brought cross-claims against codefendants Wm. C. Pahl Construction Co., Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, and A & J Steel Erectors, seeking unpaid fringe benefits and union dues. Pahl and Fidelity appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss these cross-claims. The appellate court modified the order, striking demands for liquidated damages across all cross-claims and specific interest demands in one, but otherwise affirmed, ruling that ERISA did not preempt these remedial claims. The decision clarified that while principal sums and interest were recoverable under various lien and finance laws, liquidated damages were not.

Lien LawERISAState Finance LawPublic ImprovementMechanics LiensUnpaid BenefitsUnion DuesLiquidated DamagesContract ActionPayment Bond
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,729 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