What the panel ordered
WCAB affirmed the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order dismissing the lien of Delmar Medical Imaging as untimely and barred by the statute of limitations.
Petition for reconsideration of Findings of Fact and Order Regarding Lien filed by Delmar Medical Imaging, denied by WCAB affirming WCJ's order dismissing lien as untimely and barred by statute of limitations.
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 found the lien claimant's declaration noncompliant and untimely, barred by the statute of limitations, and the WCJ's credibility determination of the lien claimant's representative's testimony was given great weight by the WCAB, leading to affirming dismissal of the lien.
From the decision · page 1Delmar Medical Imaging (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order Regarding Lien of Delmar Medical Imaging (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 20, 2018. As relevant herein, the WCJ found that lien claimant's lien was invalid when filed on October 21, 2016; that the "amended" lien filed on August 21, 2017, was untimely; that lien claimant was required to file its lien no later than 18 months after the last day of service; that lien claimant's lien was barred by the statute of limitations; and that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 were not met. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered lien claimant's lien dismissed, and that it take nothing on its lien.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimant's declaration was incomplete and noncompliant with Labor Code section 4903.8(d) requirements.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This noncompliance led to the lien being found invalid and untimely under the statute of limitations.
Lien claimant failed to submit a sworn affidavit as required for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).
Favours Defendant prevailed
Failure to meet this burden of proof led to denial of relief and dismissal of the lien.
From the decision · page 4Here, lien claimant seeks relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). Thus, lien claimant has the burden of proof of its alleged mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect with a sworn affidavit. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) Lien claimant failed to submit a sworn affidavit. Thus, it appears that lien claimant failed to meets its burden of proof pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 473(b).
Favours Defendant prevailed
Credibility determination supported affirming dismissal of the lien claim.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b)
Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b)
The lien claimant sought relief under this statute but failed to meet the burden of proof as no sworn affidavit was submitted and the testimony was not credible.
From the decision · page 3of Civil Procedure section 473...." (Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th
Labor Code section 5705
Burden of proof on party with affirmative of the issue
Lien claimant held the burden of proof to establish all elements of its claim and failed to meet it.
From the decision · page 4The burden of proof rests on the party with the affirmative of the issue. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) "All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence." (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.) Lien claimant thus holds the burden of proof to establish all elements necessary to establish its claim. (See Torres v. AJC Sandblasting (2012) 77 Cal.Comp.Cases 1113, 1117 [2012 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 160] (Appeals Board en banc).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
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.