What the panel ordered
The Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the prior Decision that a contested claim existed and that the lien claimant's services were reasonable and necessary.
Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Board's May 20, 2025 Decision that found a contested claim existed and that lien claimant's services were reasonable and necessary, returning the matter to trial for further proceedings.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 20, 2025.
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 Board found that a contested claim existed at the time lien claimant performed services and that the services were reasonable and necessary, rejecting defendant's arguments that no contested claim existed and that the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof.
From the decision · page 1Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (defendant) seeks reconsideration of our Opinion And Decision After Reconsideration (Decision), issued in the above referenced matter by a panel of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("Appeals Board") on May 20, 2025, wherein the panel found in pertinent part that a contested claim existed at the time lien claimant performed its services and that its services were reasonable and necessary, and ordered that the matter be returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine defendant's liability for payment.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant filed an Application for Adjudication on March 14, 2014, claiming back injury and disputing liability for various benefits.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established the existence of a contested claim at the time lien claimant performed services.
From the decision · page 1We will briefly review the relevant facts. On March 14, 2014, applicant filed an Application for Adjudication (Application), claiming that he sustained injury to the back while employed on May 22, 2013, by defendant as a truck driver. Paragraph 9 of the Application for Adjudication states, "This application is filed because of a disagreement regarding liability for: Temporary disability indemnity, Permanent
The Board found that the 11 subpoenas issued by lien claimant were relevant to the claim and discovery was allowed to obtain admissible evidence.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the reasonableness and necessity of lien claimant's services.
From the decision · page 2The 11 subpoenas at issue are as follows: Eugene Frost Trucking and Sales, dated 9-15-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 7) Dr. Alla Liberstein, dated 9-15-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 8) Law Offices of The Nielsen Firm, dated 9-15-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 9) Dr. Vernon Sorenson, dated 9-15-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 10) VIP Medi Records, Inc., dated 9-15-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 11) Dr. Marshall Lewis, dated 9-9-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 12) State Compensation Insurance Fund, dated 9-12-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 13) Pactox, dated 11-17-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 14) Glinn & Giordano Physical Therapy, dated 10-20-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 15) Medilab Corporation, dated 11-19-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 16) Dr. Michael Price, dated 5-27-15 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 17)
Defendant did not accept liability after receiving the Application, as required to negate a contested claim under Labor Code section 4620(b).
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the Board's finding that a contested claim existed.
From the decision · page 5Section 4620 states a contested claim exists when the employer knows that an injured worker is claiming a benefit and fails to accept liability for it. (Lab. Code, § 4620(b).) We see no indication in the record that defendant accepted liability after it received the Application. Indeed, the only evidence referred to by defendant is from before the filing of the Application, and not after.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.
The Board timely acted on the Petition filed June 6, 2025, issuing this decision on August 5, 2025.
From the decision · page 3Former Labor Code section 59091 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:
Labor Code section 4620(b)
A contested claim exists when the employer knows an injured worker is claiming a benefit and fails to accept liability for it.
The Board found no indication defendant accepted liability after receiving the Application, supporting existence of contested claim.
From the decision · page 5Section 4620 states a contested claim exists when the employer knows that an injured worker is claiming a benefit and fails to accept liability for it. (Lab. Code, § 4620(b).) We see no indication in the record that defendant accepted liability after it received the Application. Indeed, the only evidence referred to by defendant is from before the filing of the Application, and not after.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010
The Appeals Board has jurisdiction over discovery disputes and discovery must be relevant to the claim or defense.
The subpoenas were relevant to applicant's claim and discovery is allowed to obtain admissible evidence, supporting lien claimant's services as reasonable and necessary.
From the decision · page 5We are unpersuaded by defendant's argument that lien claimant did not show that the costs of the subpoenas were reasonable and necessary under section 4621. Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 states:
WCAB Rule 10450 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10450)
The Appeals Board's jurisdiction is invoked by an application for adjudication of rights and liabilities, and discovery may not be conducted until the application is filed.
The Board noted that the application filed by applicant invoked jurisdiction and assumed disputes existed, countering defendant's argument that liability was accepted.
From the decision · page 4Next, defendant's argument that it accepted liability for injury to applicant's back and paid medical benefits and temporary disability is similarly unconvincing. As relevant here, WCAB Rule 10450 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10450) specifies that the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board is invoked by way of an application for "proceedings for the adjudication of rights and liabilities... and that no discovery may be conducted until the application is filed." That is, the purpose of the application is to give the Appeals Board the authority to adjudicate disputes, and it is based on the underlying assumption that disputes exist. Yet, defendant ignores that applicant filed an Application after the two letters of May 2013 and March 2014 that it refers to in support of its arguments that it accepted liability.
WCAB Rule 10945 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10945)
A petition for reconsideration must comply with WCAB Rule 10945 requirements.
The Board found defendant's petition improper for incorporating by reference and lacking explanation, rejecting defendant's burden-shifting argument.
From the decision · page 4In its Petition, defendant contends that the Decision "impermissibly shifted" the lien claimant's burden of proof to defendant. First, we remind defendant of the requirements for a proper petition under WCAB Rule 10945 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(a)(b)), and note that defendant's attempt to "incorporate by reference" the WCJ's discussion is not only improper, it is also not persuasive because defendant fails to explain why it believes that the WCJ's analysis was correct.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The 11 subpoenas sought relevant discovery related to applicant's claim for benefits, supporting the reasonableness of lien claimant's services.
From the decision · page 2The 11 subpoenas at issue are as follows: Eugene Frost Trucking and Sales, dated 9-15-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 7) Dr. Alla Liberstein, dated 9-15-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 8) Law Offices of The Nielsen Firm, dated 9-15-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 9) Dr. Vernon Sorenson, dated 9-15-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 10) VIP Medi Records, Inc., dated 9-15-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 11) Dr. Marshall Lewis, dated 9-9-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 12) State Compensation Insurance Fund, dated 9-12-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 13) Pactox, dated 11-17-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 14) Glinn & Giordano Physical Therapy, dated 10-20-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 15) Medilab Corporation, dated 11-19-14 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 16) Dr. Michael Price, dated 5-27-15 (Lien Claimant's Exhibit 17)
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.