What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings and Order of January 14, 2025 rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Lien claimant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order issued January 14, 2025, which the WCAB granted, rescinding the F&O and returning the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold July 20, 2023.
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.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board on January 28, 2025 provided actual notice to the parties of the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on the petition for reconsideration under Labor Code section 5909.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This satisfied the notice requirement and allowed the Appeals Board to timely act on the petition, leading to granting reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the WCJ, the Report was served on January 28, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on January 28, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on January 28, 2025.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Treated applicant from April 16, 2011 through September 13, 2011 for injuries including back, left shoulder, left wrist, psyche, complex regional pain syndrome, coronary artery disease and sleep disorder.
From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND We will briefly review the relevant facts. On January 20, 2009, while employed by defendant as a customer service agent applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his back, left shoulder, left wrist, psyche, complex regional pain syndrome, coronary artery disease and sleep disorder. Dr. Bresler treated applicant from April 16, 2011 through September 13, 2011. (Exhibits 2-7, 4/16/2011, 5/17/2011, 6/18/2011, 7/19/2011, 8/20/2011, 9/13/2011.) On April 17, 2012, Legal Service Bureau, filed a lien on behalf of lien claimant.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board, and parties must be notified of the transmission date.
From the decision · page 3Former 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:
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5814
Penalties apply when payment of compensation pursuant to an award has been unreasonably delayed or refused; penalties belong to applicant, not lien claimant.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 4622
WCJ must consider whether lien claimant is entitled to payment of penalties pursuant to section 4622, not section 5814 penalties.
From the decision · page 5Here however, the issue is whether lien claimant is entitled to a penalty. Lien claimant filed a lien for payment for medical treatment, and subsequently, the WCJ awarded payment in his decision of April 17, 2019. Section 5814 penalties belong to applicant, and we do not consider the issue of whether applicant is entitled to penalties, except to note that section 5814 penalties are not awarded to a lien claimant. Instead, the WCJ must consider whether lien claimant is entitled to a payment of penalties pursuant to section 4622. With respect to any allegation regarding sanctions, we refer the parties to WCAB Rule 10786 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10786.)
WCAB Rule
WCAB Rule 10786
Regarding allegations of sanctions, parties are referred to WCAB Rule 10786.
From the decision · page 5Here however, the issue is whether lien claimant is entitled to a penalty. Lien claimant filed a lien for payment for medical treatment, and subsequently, the WCJ awarded payment in his decision of April 17, 2019. Section 5814 penalties belong to applicant, and we do not consider the issue of whether applicant is entitled to penalties, except to note that section 5814 penalties are not awarded to a lien claimant. Instead, the WCJ must consider whether lien claimant is entitled to a payment of penalties pursuant to section 4622. With respect to any allegation regarding sanctions, we refer the parties to WCAB Rule 10786 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10786.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board on January 28, 2025 provided actual notice to the parties of the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on the petition for reconsideration under Labor Code section 5909.
From the decision · page 4Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the WCJ, the Report was served on January 28, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on January 28, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on January 28, 2025.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.