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. ADJ8300983
Regular
Apr 28, 2014

ALBERTO CHICO vs. ONEMOR, INC., dba McDONALD'S, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORP.

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration for the Jacobs-represented lien claimants, upholding the disallowance of their liens due to a failure to prove industrial injury and insufficient evidence. However, the Board granted reconsideration for the Kauffman-represented lien claimants, rescinding the sanctions previously imposed. While agreeing that the Kauffman claimants also failed to prove injury, the Board found their conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or frivolous tactics required for sanctions.

WCABlien claimantspetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderOrder Overruling Objection and Imposing Sanctionsindustrial injuryprobative evidencesanctionsbad-faith actionsfrivolous
References
9
Case No. ADJ9307293
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

JUAN GARCIA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the CCPOA Benefit Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. The lien claimant sought penalties, alleging bad faith because the defendant sent an award payment directly to the lien claimant instead of its hearing representative. The Board found no evidence of unreasonable delay, noting the payment was timely sent to the address on file and promptly cashed by the lien claimant, constituting substantial compliance. The Board also suggested the lien claimant's multiple claims and penalty requests, despite timely payment, could constitute bad faith.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationBad Faith ActionsHearing RepresentativeSubstantial ComplianceSanctionsLabor Code Section 5700Legal Services BureauCCPOA Benefit Trust Fund
References
2
Case No. ADJ7564894
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

FLOR DE MARIA DE LEON vs. PORTO'S BAKERY, INC, TRAVELERS

Here's a summary for a lawyer: This case involves a lien claimant, First Choice Health UBC, whose lien was dismissed for failure to provide proof of timely payment of the lien activation fee at a lien conference. While the claimant's representative appeared for "FCH" and later submitted proof of payment for a different, similarly named entity (First Choice Medical Group), no proof was provided for First Choice Health UBC itself. The WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, finding that the claimant failed to meet the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4) by not presenting evidence of activation fee payment for the correct entity at the conference, thus warranting dismissal with prejudice. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition.

Lien ClaimantActivation FeePetition for ReconsiderationDismissal with PrejudiceContinuous TraumaServerBack InjuryKnee InjuryLower ExtremitiesNervous/Psyche
References
0
Case No. ADJ2303350 (FRE 0230817)
Regular
Apr 05, 2013

Benjamin Martinez vs. Boghossian Raisin Packing, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of notices to dismiss their liens, but the Appeals Board dismissed their petition as interlocutory orders are not subject to reconsideration. The Board granted removal on its own motion and intends to sanction the lien claimants' representative, AMR Group, and the lien claimants themselves (Hooty Services and Accutox) for frivolous and bad-faith actions. This intent to sanction stems from their attempt to challenge a procedural order clearly permitted by Appeals Board rules.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsNotice of IntentionDismissalRemovalSanctionsLabor CodeFinal OrderInterlocutory Decisions
References
7
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. ADJ6690599
Regular
Jul 05, 2013

MARIA MORENO vs. KELLY SERVICES, INC.; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered By ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Defendant Kelly Services' petition for reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision to admit certain lien claimant exhibits and award payment. The Board found that lien claimant Foundation Medical Group (FMG) failed to comply with Labor Code section 4903.8(d) by not submitting required declarations for its billing records. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding FMG's lien. Additionally, the Board dismissed lien claimant Express Case Management's petition for reconsideration as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.8(d)Declaration under penalty of perjuryIndustrial injuryLow back injuryCompromise and ReleaseLien trialMedical bills
References
0
Case No. ADJ2506742
Regular
Apr 18, 2011

SAUL FUENTES ARGUETA, SAUL ARGUETA vs. PRO CASES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant, Dr. Konstat, seeking reconsideration of a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. Dr. Konstat contends the C&R improperly dismisses the applicant's psychiatric injury claim, which had been previously established by earlier WCAB orders. However, the Board found the C&R did not explicitly stipulate the applicant *did not* sustain a psychiatric injury, but rather agreed to withdraw that specific claim. Therefore, the C&R was not a final order regarding the lien claimant's rights, and the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, allowing the lien claimant to pursue her claim separately.

Lien claimantCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial injuryPsycheStipulationFindings and AwardLabor CodeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
7
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. 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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 7,824 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