Lien Claimants liens are deemed satisfied with no further payment due for failing to follow required procedures

This is an order denying reconsideration case

This is a very significant case for workers’ compensation principles.

The applicant was standing on a curb using a shovel. A car struck the shovel
which flew into his shoulder injuring his shoulder. The car came within a foot of hitting him. The applicant was taken to the hospital where he was in shock about the accident.

The defendant admitted the neck and left shoulder injury but denied the psychiatric claim. The applicant received psychiatric treatment. A psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with post traumatic stress disorder and an adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

At trial the applicant testified to nightmares and paranoia with cars backing up. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found the psychiatric case compensable. The WCJ found that the psychiatric injury was a direct result of the work incident itself. The WCJ reasoned that Labor Code section 4660.1 (c ) (1) did not apply to the facts. This only applies when the psychiatric injury is a compensable consequence of the original injury.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed on reconsideration. They reviewed the statute and the Wilson case. The panel concluded that there was substantial medical evidence that there was a compensable direct psychiatric injury. Therefore, 4660 did not apply.


Lien Claimants liens are deemed satisfied with no further payment due for failing to follow required procedures

This is a published case

This is a very significant case for workers’ compensation principles.

The applicants both had admitted injuries. Both applicants needed interpreter services for their injuries. The interpreter service submitted invoices to defendant for services provided.

Defendant denied payment and issued explanations of review pursuant to Labor Code section 4603.3. The lien claimant objected to the explanation, but did not seek a second review pursuant to section 4603.2 or section 9792.5.

The liens went to trial. The parties stipulated that the interpreters were necessary. They submitted timely invoices. Defendant issued an explanation of review but lien claimant did not seek a second review.

The Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) found the liens were not barred. Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition.

Defendant filed the writ of review. The appeals court looked at the applicable fee schedule under Labor code section 4603.3, 4603.2 and Title 8, Section 9795.3. They also reviewed case law.

The appellate court ruled that the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to hear the lien claimants dispute. There was an applicable fee schedule. There was an “amount of payment” under the schedule. The statute required lien claimant to file a second review within 90 days. Since they did not do so the bill was deemed satisfied pursuant to 4603.2


Applicant did not suffer a work related injury when he fell in a parking lot one block from work

This is a writ denied case

This is a very significant case for workers’ compensation principles.

The applicant tripped and fell while walking after work from his place of employment to a parking lot one block away. The defendant denied the injury on the basis of AOE-COE raising the “Going and Coming’ rule. 

The employer did not provide parking for its employees. The supervisor gave suggestions as to different lots the employee could park. The lot the employee parked at was not on the employer’s premises. The employer did not own or control the parking lot.

The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) ruled the employee was not barred by the “going and coming” rule. The WCJ indicated the employer required the employees to park offsite and the employer benefitted from not having to provide parking for its employees. The WCJ indicated the employee was in the course of his employment while walking between his office and the parking lot.

The defendant filed a petition for reconsideration. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the WCJ decision in a split panel decision.

The WCAB ruled the was not a “special risk”. The WCAB ruled the applicant was subject to the same risks of walking between parking lot and the employers’ premises as any other pedestrian. They evaluated whether this was a “borderline case” and determined it was not. The injury was non industrial.


Applicant cannot receive temporary disability for time lost for treatment medical appointments after return to work

This is an appellate court decision

This is a very significant case for workers’ compensation principles.

The applicant had two specific injuries. The applicant was found permanent and stationary for one injury but not the other. The applicant returned work.

The applicant then missed time from work for medical treatment appointments and for appointments with the Qualified Medical Examiner. The applicant used sick time and vacation time for the appointments.

At a hearing the applicant claimed she was entitled to temporary disability (td) payments for the time missed from work. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) ruled under section 4600 (e)(1) that that the applicant was not entitled to td for an appointment for medical treatment. The WCJ did not rule on the QME time lost.

The applicant filed for reconsideration. The WCJ on the report and recommendation again indicated the applicant is not allowed td for medical treatment but indicated the applicant can get one day of td for the QME exam. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) agreed with the WCJ. The appellate court reviewed Department of Rehabilitation v WCAB and determined the applicant is not entitled to temporary disability indemnity for missed time from work to attend appointments for medical treatment. The applicant is entitled to td for the missed time for a medical examination as opposed to treatment.

Case:Skelton v WCAB


Applicant convicted of attempted perjury for lying at deposition even though the transcript was never signed

This is an appellate court decision

This is a very significant case for workers’ compensation principles.

The applicant claimed an ankle injury occurred on January 24, 2017 between 1 and 2 am. The applicant wrote a memo detailing the injury including the date and time. It was also reported to the supervisor and the insurance company as having occurred on that date at that time.

The employer had video evidence of that date and time and saved the footage. No evidence of an injury was visible in the video.

The applicant’s deposition was taken and the applicant testified to the injury occurring between 3 and 4 am. The applicant was asked if he previously reported the injury at 1 am and he testified he did not.

The parties stipulated that if the unsigned original transcript was not returned within 60 days, a certified copy could be used for all purposes. The applicant did not sign and return the transcript.

The applicant was referred for prosecution and charged with seven counts of insurance fraud and three counts of attempted perjury. The jury convicted the applicant of perjury but could not reach a verdict on all
other counts. The appellate court indicated that all elements of perjury were not met at trial but under People v Post, the crime of attempted perjury was met. Therefore, the applicant’s crime of attempted perjury was upheld on appeal.

Case: People v. Ibarra


Newsletter Sign up

SUBSCRIBE to our
Workers Compensation Feed

Recent Newsletters

Categories

Archives