What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as premature and matter returned to trial level for consideration as a petition to set aside the Order Dismissing Lien.
Petition for reconsideration filed by Oracle Imaging Riverside seeking review of the WCJ's Order Dismissing Lien issued December 23, 2024.
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 petition was dismissed as premature because the matter should be returned to the trial level for consideration as a petition to set aside the Order Dismissing Lien.
From the decision · page 5Order. As such, Oracle's Petition for Reconsideration is premature. The matter should therefore be returned to the trial level so that the WCJ may consider Oracle's Petition as one seeking set aside.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Oracle did not file an objection to the Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien within the time allowed.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure led to the WCJ issuing the Order Dismissing Lien.
From the decision · page 2Oracle did not attend the hearing. On November 20, 2024, defendant filed a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to WCAB Rule 10770.1 seeking dismissal of Oracle's lien due to their alleged failure to attend the November 4, 2024 Lien Conference. 1 On December 3, 2024, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien pursuant to "CCR 10888 and CCR 10875(b)" noting an intent to dismiss Oracle's lien "absent an objection showing good cause" within 10 days. Oracle did not file an objection. On December 23, 2024, the WCJ issued an Order Dismissing Lien. The Order was issued pursuant to a "Notice of Intention dated 11/27/2024 and served 12/03/24" and based upon Oracle's failure to issue an "objection within the time allowed[.]"
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 26, 2025, and the Appeals Board acted on the petition within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timing made the petition for reconsideration premature and justified dismissal.
From the decision · page 3Under 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 under the Events tab 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, 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 Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within 60 days of transmission.
From the decision · page 2I. Preliminarily, former Labor Code2 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
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10875(b)
If a lien claimant fails to appear at a lien conference, the workers compensation judge may issue a notice of intention to dismiss consistent with rule 10888 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10875(b)).
The WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien due to Oracle's failure to appear.
From the decision · page 2Oracle did not attend the hearing. On November 20, 2024, defendant filed a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to WCAB Rule 10770.1 seeking dismissal of Oracle's lien due to their alleged failure to attend the November 4, 2024 Lien Conference. 1 On December 3, 2024, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien pursuant to "CCR 10888 and CCR 10875(b)" noting an intent to dismiss Oracle's lien "absent an objection showing good cause" within 10 days. Oracle did not file an objection. On December 23, 2024, the WCJ issued an Order Dismissing Lien. The Order was issued pursuant to a "Notice of Intention dated 11/27/2024 and served 12/03/24" and based upon Oracle's failure to issue an "objection within the time allowed[.]"
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10888(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 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10888(a)).
The WCJ dismissed Oracle's lien for failure to appear and failure to object within the time allowed.
From the decision · page 2Oracle did not attend the hearing. On November 20, 2024, defendant filed a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to WCAB Rule 10770.1 seeking dismissal of Oracle's lien due to their alleged failure to attend the November 4, 2024 Lien Conference. 1 On December 3, 2024, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien pursuant to "CCR 10888 and CCR 10875(b)" noting an intent to dismiss Oracle's lien "absent an objection showing good cause" within 10 days. Oracle did not file an objection. On December 23, 2024, the WCJ issued an Order Dismissing Lien. The Order was issued pursuant to a "Notice of Intention dated 11/27/2024 and served 12/03/24" and based upon Oracle's failure to issue an "objection within the time allowed[.]"
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Oracle's claim of not receiving proper notice of the hearing date due to PO Box being flagged as a bad address
From the decision · page 1Oracle contends that they "had not received proper notice of the hearing date" which resulted in an "unintentional failure to attend." (Petition, p. 3.) Oracle further contends that the Appeals Board is "not sending notifications" to its P.O. Box due to it being flagged as a "bad address" despite the address being "true and accurate[.]" (Ibid.)
Proofs of service showing Oracle's PO Box and separate address on multiple documents
From the decision · page 48, § 10888(c).) Here, Oracle's representative, ARZ, argues that they "had not received proper notice of the hearing date" which "resulted in an unintentional failure to attend." (Petition, p. 3.) ARZ alleges that they have had "repeated issue[s] with the board not sending notifications to [their] PO Box" and claim that the "PO box [has been] flagged as a bad address" despite the address is "true and correct" and despite prior contact with "multiple employees at the WCAB" in attempts to resolve the issue. (Ibid.) Notwithstanding the fact that both the P.O. box address for ARZ and a second separate address for Oracle appear on numerous proofs of service, including defendant's November 20, 2024 notice of intent to dismiss lien and the WCJ's December 3, 2024 Notice of Intent (NIT) to dismiss lien, we note that in substance, Oracle seeks to set aside the WCJ's December 23, 2024
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.