ADJ15800852 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the May 15, 2024 Joint Order Dismissing Lien, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ.

Lien claimant United Certified Interpreting filed a lien and the WCJ dismissed it with prejudice for failure to appear at the lien conference and failure to object to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss Lien. Lien claimant petitioned for reconsideration, which the WCJ recommended denying. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailed

The WCAB found the petition timely due to extended service time, accepted excusable neglect due to illness and clerical error, and granted reconsideration to allow adjudication on the merits.

The facts that decided it

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

Lien claimant filed the lien on March 7, 2024, and was served notice of the lien conference on March 8, 2024, one day after filing.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

WCAB Rule 10868

WCAB Rule 10868 requires notice of non-attorney representatives for lien claimants.

The lien claimant designated its non-attorney representative as required by this rule.

From the decision · page 3We also observe that the Notice and Request for Allowance of Lien filed by United Certified Interpreting on March 7, 2024 lists Collective Resources Long Beach as its non-attorney representative. Thus, lien claimant designated its representative, and was aware that its representative was not an attorney.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b)

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) permits relief from judgment or order due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.

The WCAB applied this standard to grant relief from dismissal of lien due to excusable neglect and clerical error.

From the decision · page 4In addition, lien claimant's Petition seeks relief under section 473(b), which permits the trial court to relieve a party from a judgment, order or other proceeding taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. A motion seeking relief under section 473 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court; its decision will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478 [243 Cal. Rptr. 902, 749 P.2d 339]; Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233 [211 Cal. Rptr. 416, 695 P.2d 713].) "That discretion, however, is not a capricious or arbitrary discretion, but an impartial discretion, guided and controlled in its exercise by fixed legal principles. It is not a mental discretion, to be exercised ex gratia, but a legal discretion, to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice." (Rivercourt Co. Ltd. v. Dyna-Tel, Inc. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1480 [49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 279].)

Labor Code section 5903; WCAB Rule 10605

Labor Code section 5903 and WCAB Rule 10605 govern the timing for filing petitions for reconsideration, including extensions for service outside California.

The WCAB found the petition timely due to extended service time under these rules.

ADJ15800852 · July 12, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page