By Robert G. Rassp, author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis) Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Who doesn’t agree with the fact that “[w]e should not interpret or apply statutory language...
When do the exclusivity provisions of Labor Code section 3600 permit an action for law at damages? By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’...
In Guerrero v. Easy Staffing, 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS --, the WCAB, in a split panel opinion, affirmed the WCJ’s order dismissing the lien of Advance Care Specialist Medical Clinic (ACSMC) for failure to timely file the lien pursuant to the 18-month statute of limitations applicable to services provided on or after 7/1/2013 as described in Labor Code § 4903.5(a) [LC 4903.5].
(Publisher’s Note: Citations link to lexis.com; bracketed cites link to Lexis Advance.)
The WCAB panel majority concluded that the application of the 18-month statutory deadline rather than the three-year deadline for filing liens under Labor Code § 4903.5(a) [LC 4903.5] depends upon the date that services for which the lien was filed were last provided. Here, ACSMC last provided services on 9/23/2013, which followed the 7/1/2013 date specified in Labor Code § 4903.5(a) [LC 4903.5], thereby subjecting ACSMC’s lien to the 18-month statutory filing deadline rather than the three-year deadline.
The WCAB panel majority further concluded that applying the 18-month limitation period in this case was not unreasonable because the amendments to Labor Code § 4903.5(a) [LC 4903.5] became effective on 1/1/2013, and ACSMC had a reasonable time within which to file its lien.
Commissioner Sweeney, dissenting, opined that the lien claim such as ACSMC’s, for services continuously provided before and after 7/1/2013, is subject to the three-year statute of limitations, that the construction applied by the majority could potentially require lien claimants to file multiple lien claims for different dates of service in order to preserve its right to seek payment for continuous services, thereby flooding defendants and the WCAB with multiple extraneous liens, and that ACSMC’s lien was timely filed under Labor Code § 4903.5(a) [LC 4903.5] within the three-year statutory period.
COMMENTARY:
In addition to imposing lien activation fees, lien filing fees and additional regulatory hurdles on lien claimants, SB 863 also created a new, more stringent, statute of limitations for filing liens. The significance of Guerrero is the majority of commissioners on the panel concluded that the shorter 18 month limitations period applied to services provided continuously both before and after July 1, 2013. Potential lien claimants now must be aware of two separate time periods applicable to filing liens. As the dissent in Guerrero points out, this may necessitate the filing of multiple liens. Indeed, where services occurred prior to July 1, 2013, a lien will have to be filed within three years of those services. Where the services occur after July 1, 2013, a separate lien must be filed within 18 months of those services. The better and easier practice for lien claimants going forward would be to ensure that a lien is always filed within 18 months of the provision of services.
Read the Guerrero noteworthy panel decision.
© Copyright 2016 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.