ADJ6711342 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred

Petition for reconsideration granted, final decision deferred for further review and possible mediation

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.

LiensRemandedteeth

The WCJ found no dental injury and denied reimbursement to Dental Trauma Center but awarded Sleep Treatment Clinics reimbursement; the WCAB granted reconsideration due to due process concerns and ordered further review and mediation.

From the decision · page 2On 11/5/2025, this Court issued the Findings, Award and Orders and Opinion on Decision. This Court found, as indicated above, that Applicant did not sustain dental injury as alleged, the services provided by lien claimant, Dental Trauma Center, were not reasonable nor necessary, there was basis to award any additional reimbursement for the lien claim of Dental Trauma Center, the services provided

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.

Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc. (2002) 67 Cal. Comp. Cases 1588, 1592 (Appeals Board en banc)

A lien claimant must prove entitlement to payment for industrially-related medical treatment by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lien claimant stands in the shoes of the injured employee and must prove all elements necessary to establish the lien.

From the decision · page 4II. Lien claimants assert a right to reimbursement for services provided to applicant in the underlying case in chief, which resolved by way of Stipulations with Request for Award on May 18, 2021. "Where a lien claimant (rather than the injured employee) is litigating the issue of entitlement to payment for industrially-related medical treatment, the lien claimant stands in the shoes of the injured employee and the lien claimant must prove by preponderance of the evidence all of the elements necessary to the establishment of its lien." (Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc. (2002) 67 Cal. Comp. Cases 1588, 1592 (Appeals Board en banc).) All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is "... one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant..." (Id. at 158.) As stated by the California Supreme Court in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, "[The]

Lab. Code, 5909

A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board, with notice to parties.

The Appeals Board must act on the petition within 60 days of transmission, 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:

ADJ6711342 · February 2, 2026

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.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page