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. LAO 0837305, LAO 0837306
Regular
Apr 29, 2008

IRMA ALEJANDRA VILLAMAN vs. CALIFORNIA CLEANING SERVICE, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY c/o AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition to reconsider the allowance of Dr. Kan's lien for medical treatment related to the applicant's industrial injuries. However, the Board granted the lien claimant's petition to clarify the award. Upon reconsideration, the Board amended the original award to disallow reimbursement for "work conditioning" services, reducing Dr. Kan's lien from $7,998.35 to $7,858.35.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryCompensableCompromise and ReleaseMedical TreatmentChiropractic VisitsWork Conditioning
References
1
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. ADJ7781676
Regular
Nov 01, 2017

TERESA HERNANDEZ vs. T K & J, INC., dba LAS PALMAS RESTAURANT, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claim by Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center for medical treatment provided to applicant Teresa Hernandez. The applicant sustained a complex injury in 2010, and the employer provided some treatment through Dr. Lane, an MPN physician, including surgeries. The lien claimant contended that proper MPN notice was not provided and that the applicant was therefore entitled to seek treatment outside the MPN. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that the lien claimant failed to demonstrate that any lack of notice resulted in a denial of reasonable medical treatment, a burden of proof established by statute. Therefore, the employer was not liable for the applicant's self-procured treatment with non-MPN providers.

MPNLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical Provider NetworkReasonably Necessary Medical TreatmentSelf-ProcureBurden of ProofLabor CodeSB 863
References
4
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. ADJ1470421 (LBO 0386338) ADJ4674188 (LBO 0386339)
Regular
Jan 20, 2015

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. MB LANDSCAPING AND NURSERY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns lien claimants' petition for reconsideration after an administrative law judge denied their claim for payment for medical treatment provided to the applicant. The lien claimants argued the judge failed to provide adequate grounds for the decision and that the defendant did not prove the treatment was unreasonable or unnecessary. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report and clarifying that the burden of proof regarding the reasonableness and necessity of treatment rests with the lien claimant. The Board also addressed the eligibility of the lien claimants' representative to appear before the Board.

Lien claimantsPetition for ReconsiderationReasonable and Necessary TreatmentBurden of ProofLabor Code Section 3202.5Labor Code Section 5705Appeals Board Rule 10779Opinion on DecisionCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial Injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ2335133 (GOL 0097375)
Regular
Jun 24, 2010

ARMANDO TINAJERO vs. B & H FLOWERS, INC., FLORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address unclear factual and legal issues regarding lien claimant Dr. Duell's $\$13,230.68$ medical treatment lien. The Board rescinded the prior decision disallowing the lien due to lack of clarity on authorized treatment, whether Dr. Duell's requests aligned with the defendant's utilization review denials, and the applicability of certain Labor Code sections. The case is remanded for further proceedings to clarify the treatment authorization, the physician's role, and the reasonableness of the treatment provided.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderDisallowed LienMedical TreatmentCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 139.3Utilization ReviewPrimary Treating Physician
References
1
Case No. ADJ1635668 (OXN 0148383)
Regular
May 08, 2014

MARTHA MORALES vs. RICK BORQUEZ, D.D.S., STATE FARM INSURANCE

This case involves a lien claimant seeking payment for psychiatric treatment and medication provided to the applicant. The initial WCJ disallowed the lien, finding the psychiatric treatment was not for a compensable consequence of the industrial injury and that the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof. The Appeals Board rescinded this decision, holding that the applicant's psychiatric condition was a compensable consequence of the industrial injury, as evidenced by the Compromise and Release, a QME's report, and the employer's prior payments for such treatment. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the amount due to the lien claimant.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantOrchid Multispecialty Medical GroupPsychiatric TreatmentCompensable ConsequenceUtilization ReviewQualified Medical EvaluatorBurden of ProofPreponderance of the EvidenceCompromise and Release
References
5
Case No. ADJ3371067 (VNO 0458070) ADJ4100976 (VNO 0493655)
Regular
Sep 11, 2013

WILLIAM JOHNSON vs. ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRIES dba VALLEY CREST, Permissibly Self-Insured; Adjusted by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board amended a prior award concerning lien claims for medical treatment by two doctors. The Board allowed Dr. Kottler's medical treatment liens based on a prior agreement, but reduced payment for his medical reports to the Official Medical Fee Schedule rates. Conversely, Dr. Singh's lien for medical treatment was rescinded as he failed to meet his burden of proof to establish the reasonableness and necessity of his treatment. The majority opinion found the agreement with Dr. Kottler enforceable, while a dissenting opinion disagreed with its interpretation and favored the fee schedule amounts.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical Treatment LiensOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleBurden of ProofCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical ExaminerPsychiatric TreatmentCustomary FeeMedical-Legal Reports
References
0
Case No. ADJ6507434
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

GABINO DANIEL MARTINEZ MONTES vs. MURRAY'S IRON WORKS, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Frontline Medical Associates, seeking reconsideration of the denial of their lien for medical treatment provided to an applicant, Gabino Daniel Martinez Montes. The lien was denied because the claimant failed to prove membership in the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) or demonstrate the necessity of treatment for denied body parts. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the lien claimant's evidence inadmissible due to non-disclosure and upheld the denial of reconsideration. The claimant also failed to establish that treatment for denied body parts was medically necessary or that the MPN process was properly bypassed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeFrontline Medical AssociatesLien ClaimantMedical Provider Network (MPN)Pre-Trial Conference StatementAdmissible EvidenceDue ProcessLabor Code Section 4062
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,986 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