Back to Search

Fernando Calderon vs. Matharu Assisted Living; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

In this case, Fernando Calderon, an employee of Matharu Assisted Living, filed a workers' compensation claim after sustaining an injury while on the job. California Imaging Solutions, a lien claimant, filed a lien claim in November 2012. The State Compensation Insurance Fund raised the issue of California Imaging Solutions' compliance with the section 4903.8 declaration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of their September 10, 2019 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration on their own motion and rescinded the Findings and Order, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that the equitable doctrine of laches may be applicable due to the lengthy period of time that lapsed between the filing of the lien

Filed On: January 13, 2020
Court: California, Los Angeles
Case No. ADJ3110881

Matharu Assisted Living; State Compensation Insurance Fund, Fernando Calderon WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAFERNANDO CALDBRON, Applicant, vs.MATHARU ASSISTED LIVING; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case No. ADJ3110881OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION On November 8, 2019, we granted reconsideration of our September 10, 2019 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration on our own motion to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Lien claimant California Imaging Solutions seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 26. 2018. The WCJ found that lien claimant failed to file a timely declaration pursuant to Labor Code section 4903.8 * 1 The WCJ ordered that lien claimant take nothing on its lien. In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ dismissed lien claimant’s lien based, in pan, on section 4903.8(c). Lien claimant contends that section 4903.8(e) is not applicable, and that the WCAB should follow the panel decision in Kifah Shaya v. Fountain Unified School District (2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 303.2 Defendant filed an Answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration. 1 All further statutory references arc to the Labor Code unless otherwise stated.1Shava was an Appeals Board panel decision, and only en banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and WCJs. (Cal. Code Regs., tit 8. $ 10341; City of Long Beach v. Workers Comp Appeals Bd (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 316. fh 5 [70 Cal Comp Cases 109); Gee v. Workers ‘Comp Appeals Bd (2002) 96 Cal App.4th 1418. 1424. fh. 6 [67 Cal Comp Cases 2361 ) Effective January 1. 2020, WCAB Rule 10341 is now 10325. , We have considered the allegat

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!