ADJ13806639 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted; Amended Order affirmed except that the issue of interest and penalties is deferred until the end of the case in chief.

Lien claimant Kenneth R. Mackie sought reconsideration of the Amended Order granting reimbursement of costs and interest but deferring penalties until the end of the case in chief.

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.

Penalties under Labor Code §5814Defendant prevailed

The WCJ properly deferred the determination of penalties and interest because the lien claimant was not the medical-legal provider and due process requires an evidentiary hearing for penalties; interest was also premature to award.

From the decision · page 5We first turn to lien claimant's argument that because the WCJ awarded the full amount of costs and interest, an award of penalties was mandatory under Labor Code section 4622(a). We reject this argument and clarify that application of Labor Code section 4622 with respect to this lien claimant in this case is improper.

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code section 4622

Labor Code section 4622(a)(1) penalty and interest provisions apply to medical-legal providers, not lien claimants who are former attorneys.

The penalty provision is designed to protect medical-legal providers, not lien claimants who fronted payment.

From the decision · page 5We first turn to lien claimant's argument that because the WCJ awarded the full amount of costs and interest, an award of penalties was mandatory under Labor Code section 4622(a). We reject this argument and clarify that application of Labor Code section 4622 with respect to this lien claimant in this case is improper.

Labor Code section 5811(a)

Labor Code section 5811(a) allows the Appeals Board to award costs between parties.

Lien claimant's reimbursement claim falls under this section, not section 4622.

From the decision · page 6Because application of Labor Code section 4622 was improper given the facts in this case, we next consider the specific award issued by the WCJ. We note that lien claimant's claim for

Labor Code sections 5814 and 5814.5

Labor Code sections 5814 and 5814.5 govern penalties and fees payable to the applicant, not lien claimants.

Penalties belong to the applicant, and lien claimant does not have standing to seek penalties on his own behalf.

From the decision · page 8In considering lien claimant's request for penalties, it is vital that we highlight the long- held recognition that any penalty under section Labor Code section 5814 belongs to applicant, rather than their attorneys or any lien claimant. (See, Vogh v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 724, 728 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 491] ["If the [Labor Code section 5814] penalty is appropriate, it applies to the compensation to which the applicant is entitled and it is payable to the applicant and not to the lienholder"]; see also Lab. Code, § 4902.) Accordingly, lien claimant does not have standing to seek penalties on his own behalf in connection with his petition for reimbursement of costs; any penalties assessed would be awarded to applicant.2 If a trier of fact subsequently found that an award of penalties was appropriate, any claim by cost petitioner for costs and fees falls under Labor Code section 5814.5.

ADJ13806639 · October 6, 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.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page