Apportionment, Conclusive Presumptions and Labor Code Section 4662. Editor's Note: The following is Part One of a two-part article. Are there any circumstances under which apportionment will reduce a 100% PD finding under LC § 4662? In other words, when is a conclusive presumption, not conclusive? Back in 2004, the California legislature was busy drafting a massive overhaul of the workers' compensation system ultimately embodied in Senate Bill (SB) 899. But apparently they were a little unclear on the concept of what constitutes a "conclusive presumption" when they drafted LC §4664(b), which read...read more.

Liens; Medical; Filing and Activation Fees. WCAB held that, while it was improper for WCJ to dismiss lien claimant's lien pursuant to 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 10562 for failure to appear at properly noticed 1/14/2013 status conference without issuing a notice of intent (NIT) to dismiss, Labor Code § 4903.06(a)(4) required mandatory dismissal of lien for lien claimant's failure to pay $100.00 lien activation fee prior to commencement of status conference, which WCAB found was akin a "lien conference" under 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 10770.1(c). See Alexandrescu panel decision.

We report 40 to 60 noteworthy panel decisions each month on the LexisNexis Services Subscribe to the Calif. WCAB Noteworthy Panel Decisions Reporter (PDF format with xlinks to lexis.com and Lexis Advance).

Liens; Interpreting Services; Filing and Activation Fees. WCAB, denying lien claimant/interpreter's unverified Petition for Reconsideration, affirmed WCJ's order dismissing lien claimant's lien filed on 4/3/2006, for failure to pay lien activation fee as required under LC 4903.06(a), when lien claimant asserted that interpreting services provided to applicant was a cost under LC 5811, rather than a lien, and was not subject to lien activation fee, but WCAB, adopting WCJ's report, concluded that lien claimant was subject to lien activation fee based on language in LC 4903.06(a) stating that any cost that was filed as a lien prior to 1/1/2013 shall be subject to a lien activation fee, indicating a legislative intent to collect fees for both costs and liens filed as liens prior to 1/1/2013, and that, therefore, even if interpreting services provided were technically "costs" rather than "liens", lien claimant was not excused from paying lien activation fee. See Lizama panel decision.