Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Rocha v. Puccia Construction Co. (1982) 47 Cal.Comp.Cases 377; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB (Chester) (1971) 36 Cal.Comp.Cases 678; Sierra Pacific Industries v. WCAB (Lewis) (1979) 44 Cal.Comp.Cases 573
An applicant's attorney's appearance is tantamount to filing a lien claim, putting defendant on notice of a fee claim; defendant must retain sufficient funds to cover the attorney's lien or risk double liability.
Applied to find that lien claimant's appearance and lien filing provided sufficient notice to defendant, so failure to object to C&R or OACR did not waive lien rights.
From the decision · page 4First, it is well-settled that an applicant's attorney's appearance in a matter is tantamount
to the filing of a lien claim because it puts the defendant (and, naturally, the WCJ) on notice that a
fee will be claimed. (See, e.g., Rocha v. Puccia Construction Co. (1982) 47 Cal.Comp.Cases 377,
380 (Appeals Board en banc); State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Chester)
(1971) 36 Cal.Comp.Cases 678 (writ den.); Sierra Pacific Industries v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (Lewis) (1979) 44 Cal.Comp.Cases 573 (writ denied).) In Lewis, the Appeals Board held that
when an applicant's attorney appears, that attorney has a lien that attaches to any amount that is
thereafter payable as compensation, and defendant(s) must retain sufficient funds from the
compensation award to cover the attorney's lien. A defendant's failure to do so may subject it to
double liability in order to pay the noticed, unresolved fee lien.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10759(a)
WCJ must inquire into adequacy and completeness of C&R agreements, including provision for lien claims, before approval.
Applied to find WCJ erred by not reviewing court file for unresolved attorney's fee lien before approving C&R.
From the decision · page 5In accordance with Labor Code section 5502, the workers' compensation judge
shall have authority to inquire into the adequacy and completeness, including
provision for lien claims, of Compromise and Release agreements...and to issue
orders approving Compromise and Release agreements....
Shriver v. Kuchel (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 421; Burbank Studios v. WCAB (Burbank) (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 929; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10702
A contract (C&R) cannot bind a nonparty; due process requires lien claimant be given notice and opportunity to be heard before disallowance or reduction of lien claim.
Applied to find lien claimant not bound by C&R or OACR as it was not a party; WCJ erred in holding otherwise.
From the decision · page 6Here, because lien claimant was not a party to the C&R, it clearly did not accept an offer
to settle its lien claim via the agreement. Thus, as a matter of contract law, lien claimant was not
contractually bound by the C&R, or, for that matter, the OACR, which approved the C&R's terms
as drawn by the parties. (Crowley v. Maritime Corp. v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. (2008) 158
Cal.App.4th 1061, 1069 ["It goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty."].) The
WCJ would have lien claimant insert itself as a party to the C&R, which would prohibit it from
adjudicating, rather than settling, its lien claim. Such a requirement would violate lien claimant's
due process rights, and we reject the WCJ's position to the contrary. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10702 ["No lien claim shall be disallowed or reduced unless the lien claimant has been given notice
and an opportunity to be heard."].)