Sloan Lamin, vs. City Of Los Angeles; Los Angeles Police Department; Permissibly Self- Insured; Administered By Tristar Risk Management,

In this case, the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, and Tristar Risk Management were the defendants. The lien claimant, Stuart Silverman, M.D., sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order Dismissing Lien, issued January 13, 2017, due to lien claimant’s failure to satisfy the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.8(d). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration for the limited purpose of deferring a determination of lien claimant’s Petition for Costs and Sanctions, but otherwise affirmed the dismissal of the lien.

City Of Los Angeles; Los Angeles Police Department; Permissibly Self- Insured; administered by Tristar Risk Management, Sloan Lamin, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASLOAN LAMIN,Applicant,vs.CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; Permissibly Self- Insured; administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT,Defendant.Case No. ADJ1363789 (VNO 0337532)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Lien claimant, Stuart Silverman, M.D., seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order Dismissing Lien, issued January 13, 2017, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) dismissed the lien due to lien claimant’s failure to satisfy the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.8(d), which mandates that all lien claimants file, at specified times, documentation and declarations under penalty of perjury, that establishes that the services or products described in the lien claimant’s bill were actually provided to the injured worker, and that the bill attached to the lien truly and accurately describes the services or products provided to the injured worker. The WCJ determined that lien claimant failed to comply with the requirements of section 4903.8(d).            Lien claimant contests the dismissal of his lien, contending, first, that pursuant to section 4903.8(e), the lien at issue, which was filed prior to January 1, 2013, is not subject to dismissal for non- compliance with the disclosure requirements in section 4903.8(d). Second, lien claimant contends the WCJ failed to specify a reason for finding that lien claimant’s March 26, 2014 disclosure, filed on December 6, 2016, does not satisfy the requirements in section 4903.8(d). Third, lien claimant contends that substantial justice and due process concerns mandate that he be provided with the opportunity to cure the defect rather than be subject to dismissal. Fourth, lien claimant asserts that the WCJ should not have

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.