Happy Friday, dear readers!

I hope you had a wonderful St. Patrick’s day, with a bit of safe revelry on the one hand, and some traditional Irish cuisine on the other.

As the “luck of the Irish” would have it, defendants have had their hopes rekindled in the form of Cornejo case.  As my readers will recall, the WCAB ruled, en banc, that attorneys need not use “bonded” copy services when attempting to obtain records.

Well, the defendant was unhappy with this result, and, in response to its Petition for Reconsideration, the WCAB has granted the petition “to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case.”  In other words, there is potential for a different ruling – one that would require copy services to prove proper registration in order to collect on their liens.

What does this mean for defendants?  Well, copy services liens can be frustrating, but most of the attention of the Workers’ Comp community is now directed to the Court of Appeal to see what kind of law we can expect on the status of late IMR decisions: binding or no?

Obviously, your humble blogger is hopeful that the WCAB will be persuaded that that professional copy services need to be bonded in order to collect on their liens – after all, who else would the law apply to if not professional copy services, even when they are retained by law firms?

In the meantime, perhaps defendants could use this uncertainty to split the proverbial baby with existing lien claimants and resolve liens at an “uncertainty” discount.

Here’s hoping for the best, dear readers!

Special Thanks to S.O. for the tip!