ADJ3278470 — California WCAB decision

ADJ3278470 · May 1, 2026

The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the March 27, 2025 Order Dismissing Liens as void ab initio, and substituted a new order omitting Dr. Nehorayan's lien from the dismissed liens. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Van Nuys

What the panel ordered

Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association filed a petition for reconsideration of a March 27, 2025 Order Dismissing Liens issued by the WCJ, which dismissed the lien of Dr. Marc Nehorayan. The WCJ had amended the order in a January 28, 2026 Minute Order to remove Dr. Nehorayan's lien. The WCAB reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report.

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

The WCJ's dismissal of Dr. Nehorayan's lien was void ab initio due to a timely objection and request to strike the lien from the notice of intent to dismiss. The WCAB has continuing jurisdiction and may amend orders for good cause. The petition for reconsideration was timely and properly acted upon.

From the decision · page 6On March 25, 2025, defendant served a letter to the WCJ, which stated in pertinent part: There was one objection received in response to the NOI, from Marc Nehoryan and/or his representative. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that Your Honor strike out Dr. Nehorayan from the enclosed NOI, defer all issues as to that lien, and sign the Order portion on the bottom of the NOI, to resolve the rest of the liens. (Emphasis added.) On March 27, 2025, the WCJ issued an Order dismissing all of the lien claims, including that of Dr. Nehorayan, which the WCJ acknowledges was an error. On March 27, 2025, lien claimant filed a DOR.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Dr. Nehorayan timely objected to the notice of intent to dismiss his lien and requested that his lien be stricken from the notice.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This objection prevented the dismissal of Dr. Nehorayan's lien and rendered the dismissal order void ab initio.

From the decision · page 6On March 25, 2025, defendant served a letter to the WCJ, which stated in pertinent part: There was one objection received in response to the NOI, from Marc Nehoryan and/or his representative. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that Your Honor strike out Dr. Nehorayan from the enclosed NOI, defer all issues as to that lien, and sign the Order portion on the bottom of the NOI, to resolve the rest of the liens. (Emphasis added.) On March 27, 2025, the WCJ issued an Order dismissing all of the lien claims, including that of Dr. Nehorayan, which the WCJ acknowledges was an error. On March 27, 2025, lien claimant filed a DOR.

The WCJ's dismissal order included Dr. Nehorayan's lien despite the objection and request to strike it from the notice.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The inclusion of Dr. Nehorayan's lien in the dismissal order was an error that warranted rescission.

From the decision · page 7When the WCJ was apprised of lien claimant's objection to the notice of intent to dismiss, particularly coupled with defendant's request that the WCJ "strike out Dr. Nehorayan from the enclosed NOI, defer all issues as to that lien...," there was no longer a basis for dismissal, absent a hearing. The notice of intent to dismiss was void ab initio as to Dr. Nehorayan.

The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction to rescind, alter, or amend orders for good cause.

Favours neutral

This jurisdiction supports the Board's authority to rescind the dismissal order and substitute a corrected order.

From the decision · page 6II. Subject to the limitations of section 5804, "[t]he appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered under the provisions of [Division 4]... At any time, upon notice and after the opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order. decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor." (Lab. Code, § 5803.) WCAB Rule 10888 states that: (a) The Appeals Board or a workers' compensation judge may order a lien dismissed for lack of prosecution, non-appearance by the lien claimant or failure to comply with the provisions of the Labor Code or these rules.

The petition for reconsideration was timely filed and acted upon within the statutory 60-day period.

Favours neutral

Timely action on the petition supports the validity of the reconsideration and rescission of the dismissal order.

From the decision · page 5Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

The rules the panel named

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

Lab. Code, § 5803

The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction to rescind, alter, or amend any order for good cause upon notice and opportunity to be heard. (Lab. Code, § 5803)

The Board rescinded the March 27, 2025 order dismissing liens as void ab initio due to a timely objection.

From the decision · page 6II. Subject to the limitations of section 5804, "[t]he appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered under the provisions of [Division 4]... At any time, upon notice and after the opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order. decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor." (Lab. Code, § 5803.) WCAB Rule 10888 states that: (a) The Appeals Board or a workers' compensation judge may order a lien dismissed for lack of prosecution, non-appearance by the lien claimant or failure to comply with the provisions of the Labor Code or these rules.

Lab. Code, § 5909

A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board. (Lab. Code, § 5909)

The Board timely acted on the petition within 60 days of transmission.

From the decision · page 5Former section 5909 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:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10888

A lien may be dismissed for lack of prosecution after notice and opportunity to respond. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10888)

The notice of intent to dismiss lien claims was issued but Dr. Nehorayan timely objected, preventing dismissal of his lien.

From the decision · page 6Here, defendant filed a petition to dismiss numerous lien claims on February 25, 2025. On February 25, 2025, the WCJ issued a notice of intent to dismiss lien claims, providing that "Notice is hereby given that the following lien claims will be dismissed in accordance with Board Rule 10888, for lack of prosecution, 20 days after service hereof, unless good cause to the contrary is shown in writing within said timeframe...."

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10517

Pleadings may be amended by the Appeals Board to conform to proof. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10517)

The Board may amend orders to conform to proof, supporting rescission of the dismissal order.

From the decision · page 7WCAB Rule 10517 states that "pleadings may be amended by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to conform to proof." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10517.) This Rule represents the application of California's public policy in favor of adjudication of claims on their merits, rather than on the technical sufficiency of the pleadings. Informality of pleading in proceedings before the Board has long been recognized, and courts have repeatedly rejected pleading technicalities as grounds for depriving the Board of jurisdiction. (McGee Street Productions v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 717, 724 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 708]; Rubio v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 196, 200-201 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 160]; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 148, 152-153 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 866].)

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Documentary evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

Timely objection and request to strike Dr. Nehorayan's lien from the notice of intent to dismiss

From the decision · page 6On March 25, 2025, defendant served a letter to the WCJ, which stated in pertinent part: There was one objection received in response to the NOI, from Marc Nehoryan and/or his representative. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that Your Honor strike out Dr. Nehorayan from the enclosed NOI, defer all issues as to that lien, and sign the Order portion on the bottom of the NOI, to resolve the rest of the liens. (Emphasis added.) On March 27, 2025, the WCJ issued an Order dismissing all of the lien claims, including that of Dr. Nehorayan, which the WCJ acknowledges was an error. On March 27, 2025, lien claimant filed a DOR.

Other evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

Defendant's arguments characterized as frivolous and without merit

From the decision · page 7WCAB Rule 10421(b) defines bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay to include actions or tactics that result from a willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation, that result from a willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, or that are done for an improper motive or are indisputably without merit. Subdivision (b) further provides a comprehensive but non-exclusive list of actions that could be subject to sanctions, including false or substantially false statements of fact; statements of fact that are substantially misleading; or substantial misrepresentations of fact. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b)(5)).) Defendant's arguments are disingenuous at best, bordering on frivolous. We decline to issue a notice of intent re: sanctions at this time. However, we do admonish defense counsel and his firm to abstain from filing pleadings that are without merit, frivolous, or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.