ADJ16292687 · April 22, 2025

The lien claimant did not receive proper notice of the hearing and notice of intention to dismiss, violating due process and WCAB rules, rendering the dismissal order void; public policy favors disposition on merits; thus, the petition for reconsideration was granted and the dismissal order rescinded.

From the decision · page 4II. Lien claimant's non-attorney representative stated that lien claimant did not receive the notice of intention to dismiss from the WCAB, which raises procedural due process concerns as to whether the required notice was received. All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) It is one of the basic tenets of jurisprudence that a party must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before their case is dismissed. (See, e.g., San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].) Thus, the failure to serve lien claimant with the Notice of intention to dismiss is not only a violation of WCAB Rules; it constitutes a fundamental violation of lien claimant's due process rights, rendering the resulting December 18, 2024 Order of dismissal void on its face. There is a strong public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits rather than on procedural grounds. (Bland v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 324 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 513]; Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Lien claimant did not receive the notice of intention to dismiss lien

Favours Applicant prevailed

This failure violated due process rights and WCAB rules, rendering the dismissal order void and justifying reconsideration.

From the decision · page 4II. Lien claimant's non-attorney representative stated that lien claimant did not receive the notice of intention to dismiss from the WCAB, which raises procedural due process concerns as to whether the required notice was received. All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) It is one of the basic tenets of jurisprudence that a party must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before their case is dismissed. (See, e.g., San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].) Thus, the failure to serve lien claimant with the Notice of intention to dismiss is not only a violation of WCAB Rules; it constitutes a fundamental violation of lien claimant's due process rights, rendering the resulting December 18, 2024 Order of dismissal void on its face. There is a strong public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits rather than on procedural grounds. (Bland v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 324 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 513]; Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Lab. Code, 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to Appeals Board per Labor Code section 5909(a)

The decision was issued on the 60th day after transmission, thus timely acting on the petition.

From the decision · page 3Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 21, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is April 22, 2025. This decision is issued by or on April 22, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10628

Final orders must not be served by designated parties per WCAB Rule 10628

The Order of dismissal was served by a designated party, violating this rule.

From the decision · page 21 The WCJ designated service of the Order dismissing the lien pursuant to WCAB Rule 10629, however, WCAB Rule 10628 states that "The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board shall not designate a party, or their attorney or agent of record, to serve any final order, decision or award relating to a submitted issue." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10628(a).) As an Order of dismissal is final order, the designated service of the Order did not comply with WCAB Rule 10628.

Code Civ. Proc., 473(b)

Relief from dismissal for excusable neglect is available under Code Civ. Proc. section 473(b)

Lien claimant sought relief under this provision due to failure to receive notice.

From the decision · page 4II. Lien claimant's non-attorney representative stated that lien claimant did not receive the notice of intention to dismiss from the WCAB, which raises procedural due process concerns as to whether the required notice was received. All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) It is one of the basic tenets of jurisprudence that a party must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before their case is dismissed. (See, e.g., San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].) Thus, the failure to serve lien claimant with the Notice of intention to dismiss is not only a violation of WCAB Rules; it constitutes a fundamental violation of lien claimant's due process rights, rendering the resulting December 18, 2024 Order of dismissal void on its face. There is a strong public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits rather than on procedural grounds. (Bland v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 324 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 513]; Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Lab. Code, 5313

Decisions must be based on admitted evidence and include findings and reasons per Labor Code section 5313 and Hamilton

The WCJ must prepare findings and a summary of evidence to support decisions.

From the decision · page 4(1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 149].) In the Fox case, as here, a lien claimant's case was dismissed due to failure to appear. (Fox, supra, at 1206.) The court of appeal held "that lien claimants may seek relief from the consequences of a failure to appear by utilizing a procedure substantially similar to Code of Civil Procedure section 473." (Fox, supra, at 1205; Code Civ. Proc., § 473; see Lab. Code, § 5506.) Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides, in relevant part: "The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating

Lien claimant did not receive the notice of intention to dismiss, raising due process concerns

From the decision · page 4II. Lien claimant's non-attorney representative stated that lien claimant did not receive the notice of intention to dismiss from the WCAB, which raises procedural due process concerns as to whether the required notice was received. All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) It is one of the basic tenets of jurisprudence that a party must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before their case is dismissed. (See, e.g., San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].) Thus, the failure to serve lien claimant with the Notice of intention to dismiss is not only a violation of WCAB Rules; it constitutes a fundamental violation of lien claimant's due process rights, rendering the resulting December 18, 2024 Order of dismissal void on its face. There is a strong public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits rather than on procedural grounds. (Bland v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 324 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 513]; Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.