WCDefenseCA

Unfortunately, the reforms of SB-863 decided that they must be at least somewhat limited in the wrath visited upon the lien claimant community – if there is more than one injury claimed, a lien claimant need only pay one activation fee pursuant to Rule 10208(a) (“where one or more liens or one or more costs filed as lien is filed in one or more cases involving the same injured worker and same service or services by the same lien claimant, only one lien activation fee is required.”)

Accordingly, in the case of Elia Hinks v. Pavlo, Weinberg & Associates, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reversed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s dismissal of a lien when the lien claimant had paid the activation fee in a companion case which had been dismissed (apparently without the lien claimant’s knowledge).

So the WCJ dismissed the lien, and the WCAB reversed… but the panel opinion doesn’t make clear whether the lien claimant presented proof of payment at the lien conference for either case.

Now, your humble blogger isn’t as dumb as he looks – he gets it: lien claimants don’t have to pay a separate fee for every ADJ number matching applicant’s name and date of birth to get a seat at the poker table.  That’s fine… except that the lien claimant seemingly failed to provide proof of any payments, even though one had in fact been made.

It’s entirely possible that in this case, the lien claimant actually did provide the proof of payment and it is just not specifically mentioned in the panel opinion.  In any case, even if the lien claimant pays the activation fee in another case, it is still the lien claimant’s burden to prove proper and timely payment at the time of the hearing.

If you find yourself in the same scenario, it might be a worthwhile argument to bring up.