What the panel ordered
The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's Findings and Order dated 08/17/2020 denying counsel for applicant an attorney's fee out of the Stipulation and Order resolving the EDD lien.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant was reviewed by the WCAB after the WCJ's Findings and Order dated 08/17/2020 denying attorney's fees out of the EDD lien recovery.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.2(a) through (d) were not met because EDD participated in the proceedings, and the case was not disposed of by compromise and release.
From the decision · page 5In the instant case, EDD appeared at the mandatory settlement conference on 02/25/2019 and participated in and signed the pretrial conference statement on that date. EDD participated in the 09/23/2019 mandatory settlement conference at which it resolved its lien with defendant. EDD participated in and signed the pretrial conference statement on 09/23/2019. EDD participated in the 07/15/2020 trial. The case-in-chief has not yet been resolved. In my Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision that issued on 08/17/2020, based on my review of the evidence, the relevant law, and the above analysis, I concluded that the requirements set forth in Labor Code section 4903.2 (a) through (d) were not met and found counsel for applicant was not entitled to an attorney's fee out of the Stipulation and Order resolving the lien of Employment Development Department dated 09/23/2019 over Employment Development Department's objection.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
EDD participated in the mandatory settlement conferences, pretrial conference statements, and trial.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This participation meant that the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.2(a) and (b) were not met, which was essential to denying the attorney's fee.
From the decision · page 5In the instant case, EDD appeared at the mandatory settlement conference on 02/25/2019 and participated in and signed the pretrial conference statement on that date. EDD participated in the 09/23/2019 mandatory settlement conference at which it resolved its lien with defendant. EDD participated in and signed the pretrial conference statement on 09/23/2019. EDD participated in the 07/15/2020 trial. The case-in-chief has not yet been resolved. In my Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision that issued on 08/17/2020, based on my review of the evidence, the relevant law, and the above analysis, I concluded that the requirements set forth in Labor Code section 4903.2 (a) through (d) were not met and found counsel for applicant was not entitled to an attorney's fee out of the Stipulation and Order resolving the lien of Employment Development Department dated 09/23/2019 over Employment Development Department's objection.
The case was not disposed of by a compromise and release.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact meant that the requirement of Labor Code section 4903.2(d) was not met, supporting denial of the attorney's fee.
From the decision · page 5In the instant case, EDD appeared at the mandatory settlement conference on 02/25/2019 and participated in and signed the pretrial conference statement on that date. EDD participated in the 09/23/2019 mandatory settlement conference at which it resolved its lien with defendant. EDD participated in and signed the pretrial conference statement on 09/23/2019. EDD participated in the 07/15/2020 trial. The case-in-chief has not yet been resolved. In my Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision that issued on 08/17/2020, based on my review of the evidence, the relevant law, and the above analysis, I concluded that the requirements set forth in Labor Code section 4903.2 (a) through (d) were not met and found counsel for applicant was not entitled to an attorney's fee out of the Stipulation and Order resolving the lien of Employment Development Department dated 09/23/2019 over Employment Development Department's objection.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4903.2
Labor Code section 4903.2(a) through (d) requirements for awarding attorney's fees out of lien claimant's recovery
The WCJ and WCAB applied the statute to find that the requirements were not met because EDD participated in the proceedings and the case was not disposed of by compromise and release.
From the decision · page 4Labor Code section 4903.2 provides as follows:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
EDD appeared and participated in all relevant proceedings including mandatory settlement conferences, pretrial conference statements, and trial.
From the decision · page 5In the instant case, EDD appeared at the mandatory settlement conference on 02/25/2019 and participated in and signed the pretrial conference statement on that date. EDD participated in the 09/23/2019 mandatory settlement conference at which it resolved its lien with defendant. EDD participated in and signed the pretrial conference statement on 09/23/2019. EDD participated in the 07/15/2020 trial. The case-in-chief has not yet been resolved. In my Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision that issued on 08/17/2020, based on my review of the evidence, the relevant law, and the above analysis, I concluded that the requirements set forth in Labor Code section 4903.2 (a) through (d) were not met and found counsel for applicant was not entitled to an attorney's fee out of the Stipulation and Order resolving the lien of Employment Development Department dated 09/23/2019 over Employment Development Department's objection.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.