What the panel ordered
Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ on April 9, 2020, are affirmed except the issue of lien claimant's lien is deferred and orders regarding the lien are stricken; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ on April 9, 2020, was granted to study factual and legal issues; the WCJ had disallowed lien claimant Citywide Scanning's lien for failure to meet burden and violation of Rule 9982(d).
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 WCJ disallowed the lien based on Rule 9982(d) without applying the necessary analysis under Labor Code section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786; the Appeals Board deferred the issue for further proceedings to apply these legal standards.
From the decision · page 4Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) The WCJ's decision must "set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on," so that "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]... For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Id. at p. 476 (citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).) Here, the WCJ concluded that there had been a violation of AD Rule 9982, without engaging in the necessary analysis under Labor Code section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786. Thus, we will defer the issue of the lien so that the WCJ can consider the application of Labor Code sections 4620, 4621, and 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Citywide Scanning made no request for records before obtaining them, violating Rule 9982(d).
Favours Defendant prevailed
This was the basis for the WCJ's disallowance of the lien, but the Appeals Board found the need for further legal analysis under Labor Code section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Citywide Scanning seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 9, 2020. The WCJ found in relevant part that lien claimant failed to meet its burden that it was entitled to recover on its lien. In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated as a basis for his decision that: "Citywide made no request for records before obtaining them. Under Rule 9982(d) [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9982(d)] there would be no allowance of payment for any of Citywide's services."
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 9982(d)
Rule 9982(d) of the California Code of Regulations, title 8
The WCJ disallowed the lien based on this rule, but the Appeals Board found that the rule relates to payment for copying services and requires application of Labor Code section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786 for objections to bills.
From the decision · page 3The legal basis for the disallowance of Citywide's lien was Rule 9982(d).
Labor Code sections 4620, 4621, 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786
The Appeals Board deferred the lien issue to the WCJ to consider these legal provisions in further proceedings.
From the decision · page 4Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) The WCJ's decision must "set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on," so that "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]... For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Id. at p. 476 (citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).) Here, the WCJ concluded that there had been a violation of AD Rule 9982, without engaging in the necessary analysis under Labor Code section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786. Thus, we will defer the issue of the lien so that the WCJ can consider the application of Labor Code sections 4620, 4621, and 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Citywide Scanning made no request for records before obtaining them, which was a basis for the WCJ's disallowance of the lien under Rule 9982(d).
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Citywide Scanning seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 9, 2020. The WCJ found in relevant part that lien claimant failed to meet its burden that it was entitled to recover on its lien. In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated as a basis for his decision that: "Citywide made no request for records before obtaining them. Under Rule 9982(d) [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9982(d)] there would be no allowance of payment for any of Citywide's 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.