ADJ12344251 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits

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.

LiensRemandedskin · psyche · PTSD

The WCJ disallowed the lien due to failure to provide a request for authorization as required by Labor Code section 4610 and 8 CCR 9792.6.1(t). The Appeals Board found the record not properly developed and granted reconsideration to further study the issues.

From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Tiare Brock seeks reconsideration of the June 4, 2025 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his skin, psyche and injury in the form of PTSD, while employed as a Sheriff Deputy Sergeant, during the periods of October 17, 1994 through July 4, 2019. The WCJ further found that lien claimant failed to establish entitlement to penalties pursuant to section 5813 and that, pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4610 and 8 CCR § 9792.6.1(t), lien claimant's lien is deficient and disallowed.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5705; Labor Code section 3202.5; Boehm & Associates v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brower) (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 137

A lien claimant has the burden of proving all elements necessary to establish the validity of its lien by a preponderance of the evidence.

The lien claimant failed to provide a request for authorization and did not meet the burden of proof to establish the lien's validity.

From the decision · page 4Pursuant to section 5705, "The burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding

Labor Code sections 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274

Decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence, which means evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

The Appeals Board found the record not properly developed and lacking substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision.

From the decision · page 5It is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza, supra; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) "The term `substantial evidence' means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion... It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence "... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)

ADJ12344251 · September 5, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

About this page