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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2011

Spadaro v. Meza

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied their motion to determine that nonparty respondents Pacific Employers Insurance Company, c/o Gallagher Bassett, and the Special Funds Conservation Committee had no enforceable workers’ compensation lien on settlement proceeds. The injured plaintiff had two workers' compensation claims from accidents in 1998 and 2004. An agreement from 2008 allowed Gallagher Bassett and Special Funds to reserve their right to assert liens on settlement proceeds from the 2004 claim. Plaintiffs argued the lien amounts could not be accurately established due to a lack of apportionment between the claims. The Supreme Court correctly denied the motion, as Gallagher Bassett only made benefit payments related to the 2004 accident, making the lien amount ascertainable. The order was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LienSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuriesApportionment of ClaimsInsurance CarrierSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeLump Sum AwardWaiver of BenefitsSupreme Court AppealCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. ADJ3246489 (LAO 0849769) ADJ3868191 (LAO 0851408)
Regular
Jun 14, 2011

JULIO ALCOCER vs. THE CALIFORNIA CLUB, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CHUBB SERVICES CORPORATION, NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, ONE OF CRUM AND FORSTER COMPANIES

Lien claimant L.A. Orthopedic sought reconsideration of a Notice of Intent to dismiss its lien, arguing it didn't receive proper notice of the lien conference. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as moot. This is because the administrative law judge, within the allowed timeframe, rescinded the order of dismissal. Therefore, the initial notice of intent was no longer a final order from which to seek reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantReconsideration PetitionNotice of Intent to DismissLien ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeAppeals Board Rule 10562Report and RecommendationCompromise and ReleaseSpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
1
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. ADJ8674944
Regular
Sep 28, 2015

CECILIA ROSALES vs. KING TACO RESTAURANT, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim by Western Imaging Services (WIS) for photocopying services rendered to applicant's attorney. The original decision disallowed the lien, finding WIS was not an independent contractor exempt from registration and bonding requirements under Business and Professions Code § 22451(b). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that WIS *was* an independent contractor of the attorney based on submitted evidence and the plain language of the statute. Therefore, WIS is exempt from registration, and its lien is allowed, with penalties deferred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationIndependent ContractorBusiness and Professions CodeRegistration RequirementsBonding RequirementState BarProfessional Photocopying
References
4
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 5,702 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