ADJ11096892 · April 24, 2026

The Appeals Board found no abuse of discretion by the WCJ in awarding lien claimant a portion of attorney fees and denying sanctions, and the petition did not state grounds for reconsideration under Labor Code section 5903.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supports awarding lien claimant a portion of attorney fees from the compromise and release.

Lien claimant represented applicant from November 17, 2017 through January 31, 2019, and current counsel represented applicant through January 17, 2023 compromise and release.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supports fee split and awarding lien claimant 15% of the compromise and release attorney fee.

No evidence of bad faith by lien claimant for failure to appear at lien conference; lien claimant attempted to appear on hearing date.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supports denial of sanctions against lien claimant.

From the decision · page 8I exercised my discretion in denying petitioner's request for sanctions. A judge may impose sanctions for "bad faith-actions or tactics which are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Labor Code section 5813.) The imposition of sanctions is not mandatory--rather it is in the discretion of the judge. Petitioner's July 7, 2025 petition for penalties, sanctions and attorney's fees for "non appearance by defendant" at the June 16, 2025 lien conference. The petition alleged that applicant and his counsel appeared for the lien conference, although the minutes from the June 16, 2025 conference show the applicant was not present, but a representative for defendant was present. The petition seeks Labor Code section 5813 sanctions and attorneys' fees against defendant for lien claimant's failure to appear. I saw no basis to award any sanctions or attorneys' fees against defendant ICW. Lien claimant did miss the June 16, 2025 lien conference, which was requested based on their declaration of readiness to proceed. However, it does appear that when they realized the error in not appearing for the hearing, they did attempt to appear on the date of the hearing. (Lien claimant's Exhibit 3.) No evidence of bad faith on behalf of lien claimant was introduced. I therefore exercised my discretion and did not sanction lien claimant for their failure to appear.

Labor Code section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to Appeals Board.

The Board timely acted on the petition within the 60-day period.

From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

Labor Code section 5902; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945

Petition for reconsideration must fairly state all material evidence with specific record references.

The petition failed to state grounds under Labor Code section 5903 and did not comply with evidentiary requirements.

From the decision · page 3Lastly, a petition for reconsideration must fairly state all of the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue. (Lab. Code, § 5902; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(a).) The evidentiary statements in a petition for reconsideration must be supported by specific references to the record. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(b).) Applicant's attorney repeatedly alleges that the

Labor Code section 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421

Sanctions for bad-faith actions or tactics are discretionary and not mandatory.

The WCJ did not abuse discretion in declining to impose sanctions for lien claimant's failure to appear.

From the decision · page 3Pursuant to section 5813(a), the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has the discretionary power to order the payment of sanctions for "bad-faith actions or tactics which are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Lab. Code, § 5813(a).) Bad-faith actions or tactics are defined as "actions or tactics that result from a willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation, that result from a willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, or that are done for an improper motive or are indisputably without merit" and include "[b]ringing a claim, conducting a defense or asserting a position: (A) That is: (i) Indisputably without merit; (ii) Done solely or primarily for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; and/or (iii) Done solely or primarily for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b)(6).)

Emails between applicant's counsel and lien claimant showing no full and final settlement of lien claim

No evidence of bad faith by lien claimant for failure to appear at lien conference

From the decision · page 8I exercised my discretion in denying petitioner's request for sanctions. A judge may impose sanctions for "bad faith-actions or tactics which are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Labor Code section 5813.) The imposition of sanctions is not mandatory--rather it is in the discretion of the judge. Petitioner's July 7, 2025 petition for penalties, sanctions and attorney's fees for "non appearance by defendant" at the June 16, 2025 lien conference. The petition alleged that applicant and his counsel appeared for the lien conference, although the minutes from the June 16, 2025 conference show the applicant was not present, but a representative for defendant was present. The petition seeks Labor Code section 5813 sanctions and attorneys' fees against defendant for lien claimant's failure to appear. I saw no basis to award any sanctions or attorneys' fees against defendant ICW. Lien claimant did miss the June 16, 2025 lien conference, which was requested based on their declaration of readiness to proceed. However, it does appear that when they realized the error in not appearing for the hearing, they did attempt to appear on the date of the hearing. (Lien claimant's Exhibit 3.) No evidence of bad faith on behalf of lien claimant was introduced. I therefore exercised my discretion and did not sanction lien claimant for their failure to appear.