What the panel ordered
Findings of Fact and Order dismissing lien rescinded; case remanded for further proceedings
Petition for reconsideration of lien dismissal order after trial, remanded for further proceedings
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 WCJ dismissed the lien for failure to pay the lien activation fee, but the Appeals Board found the dismissal was made without a proper evidentiary record and due process, and thus rescinded the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant First Choice Doctors Medical Group, Inc., seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on June 23, 2021 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the F&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found that lien claimant First Choice Doctors Medical Group, Inc., doing business as (dba) Surgery Center of the Canyon, failed to file a lien activation fee as required by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The lien was therefore ordered dismissed with prejudice.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No evidentiary record was created at trial to support the dismissal of the lien.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without an evidentiary record, the Appeals Board could not complete a meaningful review of the dismissal, necessitating rescission and remand.
From the decision · page 4Here, the WCJ issued the F&O dismissing the lien of First Choice Doctors Medical Group, Inc., without issuing a notice of intent and without creating an evidentiary record to support the F&O. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 and 10888 (e).) Notably, although lien claimant and defendant submitted proposed exhibits as reflected in the Pre-Trial Conference Statement (PTCS, March 22, 2021, pp. 6-8), no exhibits were offered into evidence at the April 26, 2021 trial. (MOH, April 26, 2021, p. 1, lines 23-24.) Without the ability to review the evidentiary record, we cannot complete a meaningful review of the Petition.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5313, 5903, 5952(d); Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 473; Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151
Due process requires a fair hearing with findings based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence.
The WCJ's dismissal of the lien without an evidentiary record violated due process, requiring rescission and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 3As we held in our recent en banc decision in Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 830, 836 (Appeals Board en banc): "Parties have a due process right to a fair hearing and a determination based on the merits."
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidentiary record was created at trial to support the dismissal of the lien
From the decision · page 4Here, the WCJ issued the F&O dismissing the lien of First Choice Doctors Medical Group, Inc., without issuing a notice of intent and without creating an evidentiary record to support the F&O. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 and 10888 (e).) Notably, although lien claimant and defendant submitted proposed exhibits as reflected in the Pre-Trial Conference Statement (PTCS, March 22, 2021, pp. 6-8), no exhibits were offered into evidence at the April 26, 2021 trial. (MOH, April 26, 2021, p. 1, lines 23-24.) Without the ability to review the evidentiary record, we cannot complete a meaningful review of the Petition.
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.