ADJ12414993 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Both petitions for reconsideration denied.

Petitions for reconsideration of the WCJ's November 14, 2025 Findings and Award denied by the WCAB panel on February 17, 2026.

Read the official decision →

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.

Sanctions under Labor Code §5813Defendant prevailed

The split of attorney fees was reasonable considering the responsibility, care, time, and results obtained by the attorneys; the lien claimant failed to pursue temporary disability benefits despite medical support; the applicant's attorney failed to support allegations with record citations and did not call witnesses; the lien claimant lacked standing to challenge the award to the applicant's attorney.

From the decision · page 4The Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction over fees to be allowed or paid to applicants' attorneys. (Vierra v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Vierra) (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423, 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1128]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10840.) In calculating attorney fees, our basic statutory command is that the fees awarded must be "reasonable." (Lab. Code, § 4903, 4906(a), (d).) Pursuant to section 4906, in determining what constitutes a "reasonable" attorney fee, the Appeals Board must consider four factors: 1) the responsibility assumed by the attorney; 2) the care exercised by the attorney; 3) the time expended by the attorney; and 4) the results obtained by the attorney. (Lab. Code, § 4906(d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10844.)

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

QME Dr. Sanchez found the applicant's claim industrial, temporarily disabled, requiring additional treatment.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supported the entitlement to temporary disability benefits which the lien claimant failed to pursue, affecting the attorney fee division.

From the decision · page 2The Garrett Law Group agreed to utilize Dr. Sanchez as the Qualified Medical Evaluator, who issued a report dated 7/7/2020, where the doctor only refers to the advocacy letter from the defense attorney (LIEN CLAIMANT'S EXHIBIT 2). It does not appear The Garrett Law Group participated in preparing an advocacy letter. Dr. Sanchez found the applicant's claim to be industrial, the applicant was temporarily disabled and stated the applicant required additional treatment. The Garrett Law Group failed to follow up with medical treatment, including a surgical consult for the applicants severe carpal tunnel syndrome and shoulder treatment, and did not obtain temporary disability benefits for the applicant despite the QME finding injury AOE/COE. (LIEN CLAIMANT'S EXHIBIT 2 QME Dr. Sanchez)

Applicant's attorney failed to support allegations with record citations and did not call witnesses at trial.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Weakened applicant attorney's challenge to lien claimant's fee award.

From the decision · page 5Applicant attorney's petition contains many allegations that lien claimant is not entitled to an attorney's fee due to lien claimant's use of a hearing representative. However, applicant's attorney fails to cite the record throughout its petition to support any of the allegations made. (See Flores v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehab. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 204 ["an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record... to test his claim"].) Furthermore, applicant's attorney called no witnesses at trial to establish any of its allegations.

ADJ12414993 · February 17, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page