What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as untimely and upheld the dismissal of the lien with prejudice for failure to file the required declaration under Labor Code section 4903.05(c)(2).
Lien claimant Charles Schwarz, M.D., filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact Regarding Liens issued by the WCJ on September 1, 2021, which dismissed his lien for failure to file a declaration under Labor Code section 4903.05(c)(2). The WCJ recommended denying the Petition for Reconsideration.
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 lien claimant failed to file the required declaration by the July 3, 2017 deadline, resulting in dismissal of the lien with prejudice by operation of law. The Appeals Board upheld this dismissal and denied the Petition for Reconsideration as untimely.
From the decision · page 3subdivision (c)(1). As a result, lien claimant's lien was dismissed with prejudice by operation of law as of Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:01 p.m.4
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimant filed the lien on December 23, 2003, and did not file the required declaration by the July 3, 2017 deadline.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Failure to file the declaration by the deadline resulted in dismissal of the lien with prejudice by operation of law.
From the decision · page 24903, subdivision (b), on December 23, 2003. (Petition for Reconsideration, p. 2; Answer, p. 2.)
Lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration was filed on September 10, 2021, well after the July 24, 2017 deadline for timely filing.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as untimely and lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
From the decision · page 5Accordingly, lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of the dismissal of its lien claim for failure to comply with the declaration requirement of section 4903.05(c)(2), was due Monday, July 24, 2017 (20 days after July 3, 2017 fell on Sunday, July 23, 2017). Lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration was filed on September 10, 2021.
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.
Lien claimant Charles Schwarz, M.D., contested the requirement to file a declaration under Labor Code section 4903.05(c)(2) for his lien filed in 2003, arguing it was not subject to the filing fee requirement.
Lien claimant's contention about exemption from declaration filing was rejected by the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Charles Schwarz, M.D., seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact Regarding Liens issued on September 1, 2021 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that lien claimant was required to file a declaration pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4903.05, but failed to do so, and thus, that lien claimant's lien is invalid.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4903.05(c)(2)
Lien claimants must file a declaration pursuant to Labor Code section 4903.05(c)(2) for liens subject to a filing fee, with a deadline of July 1, 2017 for liens filed before January 1, 2017.
Failure to file the declaration results in dismissal of the lien with prejudice by operation of law.
From the decision · page 2Section 4903.05 states in pertinent part, as follows:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Lien claimant failed to file a declaration under Labor Code section 4903.05(c)(2) by the July 3, 2017 deadline, resulting in dismissal of the lien with prejudice by operation of law.
From the decision · page 3subdivision (c)(1). As a result, lien claimant's lien was dismissed with prejudice by operation of law as of Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:01 p.m.4
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.