What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as untimely filed, Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to consider the arguments.
Lien claimant United Med Radiology Network seeks reconsideration of the Order Dismissing Lien/Balances issued on December 30, 2025, by the WCJ, which dismissed the lien for failure to appear at lien conference on October 7, 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.
Petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was not timely filed within the jurisdictional time limits, depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider the arguments.
From the decision · page 5had run. Lien claimant alleges no basis in the petition for reconsideration how its petition is timely. According to the Order, lien claimant was served with the Order generated from the December 30, 2025 hearing. As lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely, the Appeals Board is without jurisdiction to act.2
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimant's petition for reconsideration was filed after the 30-day and 25-day time limits for filing had expired.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This untimely filing deprived the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider the petition.
From the decision · page 5had run. Lien claimant alleges no basis in the petition for reconsideration how its petition is timely. According to the Order, lien claimant was served with the Order generated from the December 30, 2025 hearing. As lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely, the Appeals Board is without jurisdiction to act.2
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 filed within the jurisdictional time limits to be considered by the Appeals Board.
The petition was dismissed as untimely, depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 4This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650, 656]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008, 1011]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73, 75-76].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Lien claimant failed to appear at the October 7, 2025 lien conference despite notice and opportunity to appear.
From the decision · page 2The Minutes of Hearing October 7, 2025, showed an appearance for defendant Farmers Insurance by Ruben Vallin. There was no appearance by lien claimant United Medical Radiology Network on October 7, 2025. The failure of the lien claimant to appear was documented in the Minutes of Hearing. Further it was noted the case was ordered off calendar at 9:40 and that an NOI to dismiss that lien was issued.
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.