What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, amended the WCJ's Findings and Orders to find a contested claim existed at the time lien claimant provided services, and deferred all other issues regarding the lien.
Lien claimant Tower Imaging sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Joint Findings and Orders disallowing its lien for photocopy services, arguing a contested claim existed at the time services were rendered.
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 WCAB found that a contested claim existed at the time lien claimant provided services because the applicant's claim was filed well before the services and the defendant had not timely accepted or denied liability, indicating a contested claim existed.
From the decision · page 5Applicant's attorney thereafter ordered subpoenas duces tecum for records, and lien claimant performed copy services in September and November 2013. At that time, it is clear that a contested claim existed, because the Application claiming injury and seeking benefits was filed by applicant on December 5, 2011 almost two years before, and the dates that the subpoena duces tecum were issued were well beyond the 14 day period for defendant to begin paying applicant temporary disability, to offer medical treatment, or to respond to applicant's claim. Thus, a "contested claim" existed prior to the lien claimant performing any copy services.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant filed the Application for Adjudication on December 5, 2011, alleging injury and seeking benefits.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established the existence of a claim well before the lien claimant provided services, supporting the finding of a contested claim.
From the decision · page 5Applicant's attorney thereafter ordered subpoenas duces tecum for records, and lien claimant performed copy services in September and November 2013. At that time, it is clear that a contested claim existed, because the Application claiming injury and seeking benefits was filed by applicant on December 5, 2011 almost two years before, and the dates that the subpoena duces tecum were issued were well beyond the 14 day period for defendant to begin paying applicant temporary disability, to offer medical treatment, or to respond to applicant's claim. Thus, a "contested claim" existed prior to the lien claimant performing any copy services.
Defendant did not timely accept or deny liability for the claim, as evidenced by numerous unpaid liens and lack of benefit payments.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure to respond or pay benefits within the statutory period established a contested claim at the time lien claimant provided services.
From the decision · page 5Applicant's attorney thereafter ordered subpoenas duces tecum for records, and lien claimant performed copy services in September and November 2013. At that time, it is clear that a contested claim existed, because the Application claiming injury and seeking benefits was filed by applicant on December 5, 2011 almost two years before, and the dates that the subpoena duces tecum were issued were well beyond the 14 day period for defendant to begin paying applicant temporary disability, to offer medical treatment, or to respond to applicant's claim. Thus, a "contested claim" existed prior to the lien claimant performing any copy services.
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.
From the decision · page 3On January 14, 2014, applicant was evaluated by a qualified medical evaluator (QME) Jacob (Hagop) M. Ishkanian, M.D. (Exh. 11.) By way of history, he told Dr. Ishkanian that he had reported the injury to his employer, but they had not provided him any medical treatment. He then sought legal representation and was referred by his attorney for medical treatment. (Exh. 11, p 4.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4620(b)
A contested claim exists when the employer knows or reasonably should know that the employee is claiming entitlement to any benefit arising out of a claimed industrial injury and one of the following conditions exists: (1) The employer rejects liability for a claimed benefit; (3) The employer fails to respond to a demand for payment of benefits after the expiration of any time period fixed by statute for the payment of indemnity. (Lab. Code, § 4620(b))
The WCAB applied this standard to determine that a contested claim existed at the time lien claimant provided services because the defendant had not timely accepted or denied liability and the claim was filed well before the services were rendered.
From the decision · page 4Section 4620(b) states that: "A contested claim exists when the employer knows or reasonably should know that the employee is claiming entitlement to any benefit arising out of a claimed industrial injury and one of the following conditions exists:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's claim was filed on December 5, 2011, and subpoenas for records were issued in 2013, well beyond the 14-day period for defendant to respond or pay benefits, indicating a contested claim existed at the time lien claimant provided services.
From the decision · page 5Applicant's attorney thereafter ordered subpoenas duces tecum for records, and lien claimant performed copy services in September and November 2013. At that time, it is clear that a contested claim existed, because the Application claiming injury and seeking benefits was filed by applicant on December 5, 2011 almost two years before, and the dates that the subpoena duces tecum were issued were well beyond the 14 day period for defendant to begin paying applicant temporary disability, to offer medical treatment, or to respond to applicant's claim. Thus, a "contested claim" existed prior to the lien claimant performing any copy services.
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.