ADJ19131469 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as lien claimant was not aggrieved by the OACR.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by lien claimant Optimal Health Medical Center after Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by WCJ on June 13, 2025, was considered by WCAB panel.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

Lien claimant was not aggrieved by the OACR because the C&R did not include a final resolution of the lien claim, and the lien claimant was not a party to the C&R. The lien is for medical treatment payment under section 4903(b) and is payable by defendants directly in separate proceedings. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed.

From the decision · page 4A lien claimant is not an aggrieved party for the purpose of filing a petition for reconsideration of an OACR, if the C&R, between the employer/carrier and the employee, does not include a final resolution of the lien claim. (The Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Williams) (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d [42 Cal.Comp.Cases 745]; Oliver and Winston Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gregg) (1983) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 814 (writ denied).)

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5909

A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board (Labor Code section 5909).

The Appeals Board acted on the petition within the 60-day period, thus the petition was timely considered.

From the decision · page 2Former Labor Code section 59091 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

California Civil Code sections 1550, 1565, 1580, 1636, 1638, 1639

Contract principles apply to compromise and release agreements; mutual consent and meeting of the minds are required for validity (California Civil Code sections 1550, 1565, 1580, 1636, 1638, 1639).

The C&R language clearly reserved lien adjustment and/or litigation, indicating no final resolution of lien claims in the agreement.

From the decision · page 4II. We observe that contract principles apply to settlements of workers' compensation disputes. The legal principles governing compromise and release agreements are the same as those governing other contracts. (Burbank Studios v. Workers' Co. Appeals Bd. (Yount) (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 929, 935 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 832].) For a compromise and release agreement to be effective, the necessary elements of a contract must exist, which includes the mutual consent of the parties. (Civ. Code, § 1550, 1565, 1580; Yount, supra.) Put another way, there can be no contract unless there is a meeting of the minds and the parties mutually agree upon the same thing. (Civ. Code, § 1550, 1565, 1580; Sackett v. Starr (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 128, 133; Sieck v. Hall (1934) 139 Cal.App. 279, 291; American Can Co. v. Agricultural Ins. Co. (1909) 12 Cal.App.

ADJ19131469 · September 2, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page