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
© Copyright 2024