ADJ8760735 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirms the June 16, 2021 Findings and Order re Lien of Preferred Scan denying the lien and penalties/interest.

Lien claimant Preferred Scan seeks reconsideration of the June 16, 2021 Findings and Order re Lien denying its lien and penalties/interest.

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.

LiensDefendant prevailed

The lien claimant failed to establish the market rate for services and failed to provide evidence of the liquidation date or delay attributable to CIGA, thus failing to meet the burden of proof for penalties and interest under Labor Code section 3202.5. CIGA is not responsible for penalties and interest accrued against the liquidated carrier under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(8).

From the decision · page 4The undersigned issued a decision against lien claimant based on its failure to sustain the Burden of Proof under Labor Code section 3202.5 on 16 June 2021. The undersigned decided not to award costs or assess sanctions against either side. This Petition for Reconsideration followed.

The facts that decided it

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

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Documentary evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

Lien claimant Preferred Scan failed to provide sufficient evidence of the market rate for services rendered, as the Market Rate Analysis lacked itemized billing comparison.

From the decision · page 4First of all, the undersigned did consider the Market Rate Analysis provided by the lien claimant. However, the Market Rate Analysis was unhelpful in determining the market rate for the services provided. Looking at Exhibit 5, one sees a detailed tabulation of the percentage recovery for various liens filed by PREFERRED SCAN in other cases. The percentage appears to be computed as a function of the amount claimed divided by the amount recovered for the whole bill in each claim.

Documentary evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

Neither party provided evidence of the liquidation date or clear notice of dispute to CIGA, resulting in insufficient evidence to establish penalties and interest.

From the decision · page 7Furthermore, neither side has provided the date of liquidation, that is to say, the date CIGA began administration of this claim to the judge in the form of probative evidence. Nor has either side provided the Court with evidence as to when PREFERRED SCAN made clear to CIGA that a dispute remained.

treatment coursefavours neutral

Both parties failed to properly prepare for trial, with CIGA failing to upload exhibits and Preferred Scan failing to understand applicable law, leading to denial of sanctions and costs but warnings issued.

From the decision · page 9Similarly, PREFERRED SCAN seeks sanctions against CIGA. Here the judge saw reasons for costs and sanctions in open court both on the telephonic conference line and in the Lifesize video conference line. Defense counsel arrived late and only appeared after the undersigned ordered the representative for PREFERRED SCAN to call CIGA and get them to appear. Also, CIGA had failed to upload its exhibits into EAMS FileNet so that there were no exhibits to support their position. There were other problems involving misplaced blame but these two points are enough.

ADJ8760735 · March 19, 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.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page