What the panel ordered
Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ on April 9, 2020, are affirmed except the issue of lien claimant's lien is deferred and orders regarding the lien are stricken; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ on April 9, 2020, was granted to study factual and legal issues; the WCJ had disallowed lien claimant Citywide Scanning's lien for failure to meet burden and violation of Rule 9982(d).
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 disallowed the lien based on Rule 9982(d) without applying the necessary analysis under Labor Code section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786; the Appeals Board deferred the issue for further proceedings to apply these legal standards.
From the decision · page 4Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) The WCJ's decision must "set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on," so that "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]... For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Id. at p. 476 (citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).) Here, the WCJ concluded that there had been a violation of AD Rule 9982, without engaging in the necessary analysis under Labor Code section 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786. Thus, we will defer the issue of the lien so that the WCJ can consider the application of Labor Code sections 4620, 4621, and 4622 and WCAB Rule 10786.