1
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
6
Case No.
LIDIA BUENO,
Applicant,
OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING RECONSIDERATION
AND DECISION AFTER
RECONSIDERATION
vs.
7
RAVILA FARM LABOR SERVICES;
8 REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered By
9 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY,
10
ADJ2178733 (BAK 0154115)
Defendants.
11
12
Lien claimant Biocare RX Specialty Pharmacy (Biocare), through its representative, Elite Lien
13
Services, seeks reconsideration of the March 4, 2014 Order to Dismiss Liens (Order), wherein the
14
workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) dismissed Biocare's lien.
15
Biocare contends that the WCJ erred in dismissing its lien.
16
We have not received an answer from defendant.
The WCJ prepared a Report and
17
Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition for
18
Reconsideration (Petition) be denied.
19
We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report, and we have
20
reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration and
21
rescind the WCJ's Order.
22
23
FACTS
Applicant claimed that, while employed by defendant as a supervisor on May 10, 2008, she
24
sustained industrial injury to multiple body parts.
25
Compromise and Release, and an order approving issued on September 24, 2013.
Applicant's case was resolved by way of a
26
The record in the Adjudication File in FileNet in EAMS does not contain a Notice and Request
27
for Allowance of Lien associated with Biocare, and it appears that no lien has been filed. However, on
1
January 16, 2014, Biocare sent defendant a letter titled Lien Balance & Demand, in which it sought to
2
resolve its outstanding balance.
3
A lien conference was held on January 28, 2014, at which defendant sought to dismiss the liens of
4
several lien claimants, including Biocare.
5
Dismiss Biocare's lien for non-appearance at the lien conference, unless an objection showing good
6
cause to the contrary was filed within 10 days from service of the Notice of Intention to Dismiss.
The same day, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to
7
No objection was received from Biocare, and on February 21, 2014, defendant requested that the
8
WCJ issue and order dismissing its lien. On March 4, 2014, the WCJ issued his Order dismissing
9
Biocare's lien.
10
Biocare timely sought reconsideration, contending the WCJ erred in dismissing its lien. In its
11
verified Petition, Biocare argues that the WCJ has no jurisdiction to dismiss its lien because to date,
12
Biocare has not filed a lien in the instant matter. Biocare also states that its statutory time within which
13
to file its lien has not yet expired.
14
DISCUSSION
15
A petition for reconsideration is properly made only from a final order, decision, or award.
16
(Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) Additionally, reconsideration is a remedy available only to persons
17
who are "aggrieved" by a final order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5903.)
18
Additionally, under Labor Code section 4903.5, a lien claim must be filed within three years from
19
the date the services were provided if the services were provided before July 1, 2013, or within 18
20
months from the date the services were provided if the services were provided on or after July 1, 2013.
21
(Lab. Code, § 4903.5(a).) Before a lien claim is formally filed, the WCAB does not have jurisdiction
22
over a lien.
23
Here, Biocare has been aggrieved in that its lien was dismissed prospectively - before Biocare
24
had filed the lien. Reconsideration is therefore a proper remedy. Further, it appears from Biocare's
25
verified Petition that the time frame within which Biocare may file a lien has not yet expired. (Petition,
26
3:10-11.) It also appears that although Biocare seems to have attempted to resolve its claim informally
27
with defendant, no lien has been filed.
BUENO, Lidia
Therefore, neither the WCJ nor the Appeals Board has
2
1
jurisdiction over Biocare's claim for reimbursement, and it cannot be dismissed. We also note
that
2
Biocare was not in the official address record at the time of the lien conference, and would therefore
not
have received notice of the lien conference at which it did not appear. In the absence of notice of the
lien
3
4
conference, Biocare's lien should not have been dismissed for failure to appear at the lien conference.
5
We will therefore grant Biocare's Petition and rescind the WCJ's Order.
6
For the foregoing reasons,
7
IT IS ORDERED that lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration of the March 4, 2014 Order to
8
Dismiss Liens is GRANTED.
9
//
10
///
11
///
12
//
13
///
14
///
15
/1I
16
//
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
/I
21
//
22
//
23
///
24
///
25
//
26
///
27
///
BUENO, Lidia
3
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers'
2
Compensation Appeals Board, that the March 4, 2014 Order to Dismiss Liens is RESCINDED.
3
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
CR6STIN
6
7
GONDAK
I CONCUR,
8
9
10
_
11DEIDRA E.L. WE
12
r'
13
_
_
_
14
_
~ ~
_
MARGJERIkuE
WEtEN
15
16
DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
HAY 2 7 9t4
17
18"
19
20
21
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR
ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
BIOCARE RX SPECIALTY PHARMACY
ELITE LIEN SERVICES
GINA GABRIELLE BARSOTTI, APLC
22
23
24
25
26
RB/sye
27EN,
ida
BUENO, Lidia
4