What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Joint Order Dismissing Lien dated September 4, 2024, rescinded; matter returned to district office for further proceedings.
Petition for Reconsideration of Joint Order Dismissing Lien filed by lien claimant Eric Gofnung Chiropractic Corporation, challenging dismissal for failure to appear at lien conference.
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 Appeals Board found that the lien claimant's failure to appear was due to excusable neglect and illness of the representative, and that the dismissal order was defective due to lack of proper notice to the representative, warranting reconsideration and rescission of the dismissal order.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Eric Gofnung Chiropractic Corporation (Gofnung) has petitioned for reconsideration of the Joint Order Dismissing Lien without prejudice (Order Dismissing) dated September 4, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered the lien dismissed after lien claimant failed to appear at the lien conference of June 19, 2024, and failed to object to the Notice of Intention (NIT) to dismiss.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimant's representative Collective Resources was not properly served with the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and Order Dismissing lien.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of proper notice rendered the dismissal order defective and justified reconsideration.
From the decision · page 5Furthermore, it appears that lien claimant's hearing representative Collective Resources was added to the official address record in EAMS on May 28, 2024 on ADJ14513995, and such representation was also served on defendant prior to the WCJ's issuance and service of the Joint NIT and Order to Dismiss the lien of Gofnung, thereby calling the validity of the Joint NIT and Order into question.
Lien claimant's representative was ill and unable to attend the lien conference on June 19, 2024.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This excusable neglect justified relief from dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.
From the decision · page 6Here, as in Fox, supra, lien claimant's failure to appear at the lien conference where his presence was required resulted in the dismissal of his underlying lien claim. Here, as in Fox, lien claimant seeks relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure for failing to appear based upon surprise and neglect. Petitioner further asserts his hearing representative was ill on the date of the hearing. (Petition for Reconsideration, dated 9/18/2024, pp. 1-2.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Code of Civil Procedure section 473
Code of Civil Procedure section 473 allows relief from dismissal due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.
The Board applied this standard to grant relief to the lien claimant for failure to appear due to excusable neglect and illness of representative.
From the decision · page 5Petitioner also seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, for failing to appear at the lien conference, due to inadvertence, excusable neglect, as well as illness of lien claimant's representative.
Labor Code section 5506
Labor Code section 5506 authorizes the Appeals Board to relieve a party from dismissal due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 473.
The Board applied this standard to extend relief to the lien claimant under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.
From the decision · page 5Labo r Code Section 5506 authorizes the Appeals Board to relieve a defendant from default or dismissal due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 473. That relief has been extended to all parties, including lien claimants. (Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal. App. 4th 1196 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 149].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Lien claimant's representative was ill and unable to attend lien conference, constituting excusable neglect.
From the decision · page 6Here, as in Fox, supra, lien claimant's failure to appear at the lien conference where his presence was required resulted in the dismissal of his underlying lien claim. Here, as in Fox, lien claimant seeks relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure for failing to appear based upon surprise and neglect. Petitioner further asserts his hearing representative was ill on the date of the hearing. (Petition for Reconsideration, dated 9/18/2024, pp. 1-2.)
Lack of proper notice to lien claimant's representative Collective Resources of the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and Order Dismissing lien.
From the decision · page 5Furthermore, it appears that lien claimant's hearing representative Collective Resources was added to the official address record in EAMS on May 28, 2024 on ADJ14513995, and such representation was also served on defendant prior to the WCJ's issuance and service of the Joint NIT and Order to Dismiss the lien of Gofnung, thereby calling the validity of the Joint NIT and Order into question.
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.