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. ADJ8759866
Regular
Sep 01, 2016

ERNESTINA ESCAMILLA vs. PELICAN PRODUCTS, INC., UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case addresses a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a denied lien. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that the lien was barred by Labor Code section 4903.5(a)'s 18-month limitations period. The Board ruled that because services were provided after July 1, 2013, the lien claimant was obligated to file within 18 months of the last service date, which they failed to do. The Board reasoned that the statute provided reasonable time for filing after its enactment.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)lien claimantreconsideration18-month limitation periodJuly 12013reasonable timeretroactive applicationproceduralvocational rehabilitation
References
10
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. ADJ344700
Regular
Jan 13, 2011

MARTHA GATLIN BANUELOS vs. LIVHOME, INC., as administered by CRUM FORSTER, CENTRAL ORTHOPEDIC MEDICAL GROUP, RONALD KVITNE, M.D. PHYSICIAN PARTNER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, finding they were not aggrieved by the decision awarding them full reimbursement for medical services. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was denied as the WCAB adopted the judge's reasoning for upholding the award. The WCAB affirmed the judge's finding that the lien claimant was entitled to $11,508.79 less any penalty or interest, despite an objection to an unsigned bill. This decision resolved disputes regarding the reasonableness of medical charges following an industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDefendant's PetitionAmended Findings and AwardOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLabor Code section 5900Admissibility of EvidenceExhibit 1Itemized Bill
References
0
Case No. ADJ1158684 (GOL 0099195)
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

CAROLINA VELA vs. SERVICE MASTER CBM, AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to correct a clerical error, reducing the lien awarded to Lorena Ortiz-Schneider from $4,025.00 to $1,995.00. The Board also denied Associated Reproduction Services' petition, affirming the WCJ's decision to award copy charges at a reasonable rate of 20 cents per page, referencing precedent established by *Kunz* and *Sweet*. This decision clarifies the correct lien amount and upholds the application of reasonable rates for reproduction services.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantInterpreting ServicesCopy ChargesReasonableness of ChargesMedical-Legal ExpensesClerical ErrorDecision After ReconsiderationKunz v. Patterson
References
2
Case No. ADJ8093832
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

ARACELI CASILLAS DE VAZQUEZ vs. EL TAPATIO MARKET, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimants Western Imaging Services and Tower Copy Service petitioned for reconsideration after their liens were denied by the WCJ. The WCJ had ruled they were unregistered professional photocopiers and not exempt from registration requirements. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the lien claimants were indeed independent contractors of applicant's attorney, a member of the State Bar. Therefore, they qualified for the exemption under Business and Professions Code section 22451(b). The case was remanded for a determination of the reasonableness of the claimed fees.

Professional photocopierBusiness and Professions Code Section 22450Business and Professions Code Section 22451Independent contractor exemptionMember of the State BarLien claimantsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for reconsiderationDecision after reconsiderationWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ4673406 (ANA 0403334) ADJ4233924 (ANA 0376527)
Regular
Sep 29, 2009

Joseph Vella vs. Hitchcock Automotive, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case concerns a dispute over the reasonableness of a lien claimant's billing for outpatient surgery services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original award, finding the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by concluding the lien claimant met its burden based solely on its usual billing practices without a proper analysis of reasonableness. The Board remanded the case to the ALJ to determine a reasonable fee considering all evidence, including the lien claimant's and defendant's submissions, as outlined in *Kunz* and *Tapia*. The decision emphasizes that the lien claimant bears the affirmative burden to prove the reasonableness of its fee.

Kunz doctrinelien claimantreasonable feerebuttal evidenceTapiabillingmedical treatmentoutpatient surgeryinpatient hospitalDRG
References
5
Case No. ADJ7787891
Regular
Sep 25, 2015

JORGE CERVANTES vs. JBM SPORT TRUCK AND ACCESSORIES, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary for a lawyer, in a maximum of four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a prior decision that disallowed a lien claimant's invoice for photocopying services. The Board found that the lien claimant, California Imaging Solutions, acted as an agent or independent contractor for applicant's attorney, a member of the State Bar. This status exempted them from Business and Professions Code registration and bonding requirements. Consequently, the case was returned to the trial level to determine the reasonable fee for the lien claimant's services.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent ContractorBusiness and Professions Code Section 22451Registration RequirementBonding RequirementProfessional PhotocopierState Bar MemberApplicant's Attorney
References
10
Case No. ADJ8254917
Regular
May 07, 2015

ALEJANDRO LOPEZ vs. CALPAC PAINTINGS AND COATINGS ACQUISITIONS, COMPANION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision disallowing a lien claim and imposing sanctions. The WCJ had found that the lien claimant, San Diego Imaging, Inc. (CIS), failed to provide sufficient evidence of reasonable charges and registration compliance. The Appeals Board found that CIS's claim of exemption under Business and Professions Code § 22451(b) as an agent of a State Bar member should be considered, and the case was returned for further development of the record at the trial level. CIS should be allowed to present evidence regarding its exemption and the compensability of its lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationBusiness and Professions CodeRegistration ExemptionPhotocopy ServicesIndependent ContractorMember of the State BarWCJ Decision Rescinded
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,897 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