AJC SANDBLASTING; and ZURICH NORTH AMERICA TITO TORRES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIATITO TORRES, Applicant,vs.AJC SANDBLASTING; and ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, Defendants.UNITECH DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, Lien Claimant.Case Nos. ADJ909554 (LAO 0824849)ADJ1856854 (LAO 0837910)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) We granted the petition for reconsideration filed by Green Lien Collections on behalf of lien claimant, Unitech Diagnostics, LLC (Unitech). Thereafter, to secure uniformity of decision in the future, the Chairwoman of the Appeals Board, upon a majority vote of its members, assigned this case to the Appeals Board as a whole for an en banc decision.1 While this decision does not annunciate any new legal principles, we deem it necessary to act en banc because of a number of lien claimants who persist in disregarding existing law as to their burden of proof and repeatedly proceed to trial on lien claims that are so lacking in evidentiary support and/or presented with such a total disregard of existing law as to be frivolous. These lien claimants overburden the system, waste the limited resources of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and squander valuable calendar time, which otherwise could be/ / // / // / / 1 En banc decisions of the Appeals Board (Lab. Code, § 115) are binding precedent on all Appeals Boardpanels and workers’ compensation judges. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10341; Signature Fruit Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Ochoa) (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 790, 796, fn. 2 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1044]; Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1425, fn, 6 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 236, 239, fn. 6].) In addition to being adopted as a precedent decision in accordance with Labor Code section 115 and Appeals Board Rule 10341, this en banc decision is also being adopted as a precedent decision in accordance with Government Code section 11425.60(b). , used to address the claims of injured workers, Therefor
