What the panel ordered
The Petition for Removal from the order continuing the lien trial issued on March 8, 2023, by the WCJ is dismissed by the Appeals Board.
Lien claimant Stuart Silverman, M.D., filed a petition for removal from the order continuing the lien trial issued on March 8, 2023, by the WCJ, which was dismissed by the Appeals Board as the issue was not ripe for adjudication.
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 Appeals Board dismissed the petition because there was no order or decision from the WCJ on the issue raised, making it not ripe for adjudication.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as there is presently no order or decision of the WCJ as to the issue raised by lien claimant, and thus, the issue is not ripe for adjudication. Upon return the parties may raise any objections to any rulings made at trial regarding witness testimony and may thereafter seek appropriate relief if they are aggrieved.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No order or decision of the WCJ had been issued on the issue raised by the lien claimant.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because there was no order or decision, the issue was not ripe for adjudication, leading to dismissal of the petition.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as there is presently no order or decision of the WCJ as to the issue raised by lien claimant, and thus, the issue is not ripe for adjudication. Upon return the parties may raise any objections to any rulings made at trial regarding witness testimony and may thereafter seek appropriate relief if they are aggrieved.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10945(a)
Verified petitions for removal shall fairly state all of the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue.
The Appeals Board admonished the lien representative for not fairly stating all material evidence in the petition.
From the decision · page 2Finally, in the verified Petition for Removal, lien claimant states that defendant's substitute witness was not listed on the pre-trial conference statement. However, this is not true. We admonish lien representative Dan Escamilla and the Legal Service Bureau that verified petitions for removal "shall fairly state all of the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(a)) and that engaging in tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause delay can subject the offending person to sanctions (Lab. Code § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421).
Lab. Code 5813
Engaging in tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause delay can subject the offending person to sanctions.
The Appeals Board warned that frivolous or delay tactics in petitions can lead to sanctions.
From the decision · page 2Finally, in the verified Petition for Removal, lien claimant states that defendant's substitute witness was not listed on the pre-trial conference statement. However, this is not true. We admonish lien representative Dan Escamilla and the Legal Service Bureau that verified petitions for removal "shall fairly state all of the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(a)) and that engaging in tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause delay can subject the offending person to sanctions (Lab. Code § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421).
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10421
The Appeals Board may impose sanctions for frivolous or dilatory tactics in litigation.
The Appeals Board cited this regulation to support potential sanctions for frivolous petitions.
From the decision · page 2Finally, in the verified Petition for Removal, lien claimant states that defendant's substitute witness was not listed on the pre-trial conference statement. However, this is not true. We admonish lien representative Dan Escamilla and the Legal Service Bureau that verified petitions for removal "shall fairly state all of the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(a)) and that engaging in tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause delay can subject the offending person to sanctions (Lab. Code § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421).
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.