ADJ1424195 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Findings and Order issued by WCJ on February 27, 2020 rescinded; case remanded to trial level for further proceedings

Petition for reconsideration granted; Findings and Order of WCJ rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

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.

LiensApplicant prevailed

The WCJ presumed prejudice from delay but there was no evidence defendant was actually prejudiced; the Appeals Board found the lien was not barred by laches and remanded for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 4The claims were found to be barred by laches because the insurer's file was closed in 1970, the file was destroyed and the claims adjuster was deceased. In this matter, defendant only offered two exhibits at trial to dispute the lien claim: an EAMS lien printout for the case and Elaine Taite's deposition transcript. No witnesses were offered by defendant. The WCJ presumed that defendant's file has been destroyed, but there is no evidence in the record to support this presumption. Moreover, defendant has not demonstrated how it was prejudiced by the delay. Consequently, the evidence does not support a finding that the lien is barred by laches. In conclusion, we will rescind the F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The disputed issues between the parties may be addressed by the trier of fact in the first instance.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Other evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

substantial delay between lien claim filing and pursuit of reimbursement

From the decision · page 4speaking, the existence of laches is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court in light of all of the applicable circumstances... (Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center (1980) 27 Cal.3d 614, 624.) It is acknowledged that there was a substantial delay between the lien claim's filing and lien claimant's pursuit of reimbursement. The WCJ in his Opinion on Decision and Report indicates that prejudice to defendant may be presumed by this delay. However, defendant must show that it was actually prejudiced by the delay. The WCJ cited to Wright v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 95 (writ den.) in support of his conclusion that the "destruction of the file and the protracted extent of delay constitute prejudice." (Opinion on Decision, February 26, 2020, p. 1.) In Wright, the employee filed two applications for adjudication of claims in 2004 for injuries sustained in 1962 and 1965.

Other evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

no evidence defendant was prejudiced by delay

From the decision · page 4The claims were found to be barred by laches because the insurer's file was closed in 1970, the file was destroyed and the claims adjuster was deceased. In this matter, defendant only offered two exhibits at trial to dispute the lien claim: an EAMS lien printout for the case and Elaine Taite's deposition transcript. No witnesses were offered by defendant. The WCJ presumed that defendant's file has been destroyed, but there is no evidence in the record to support this presumption. Moreover, defendant has not demonstrated how it was prejudiced by the delay. Consequently, the evidence does not support a finding that the lien is barred by laches. In conclusion, we will rescind the F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The disputed issues between the parties may be addressed by the trier of fact in the first instance.

ADJ1424195 · November 17, 2022

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