HomeCategory Liens

Stay up to date with latest news from M&F Resources



In a victory for defendants, the WCAB en banc held that a medical legal provider has the initial burden of proof that it complied with Labor Code §4620 showing that its services were “reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred” and defendant did not waive this objection by failing to address this issue in an EOR.

Lien Activation Fee for Pre-2014 Lien Claims Found To Be Constitutional

Chiropractic, et al. v. Christine Baker, et al., finding that the lien activation fee adopted as part of SB 863 does not violate the constitutional rights of lien claimants.By way of background, one of the provisions of SB 863 was that, effective January 1, 2013, most lien claimants who had previously filed liens were required to pay a lien activation fee of $100. The activation fee had to be paid as a condition of filing a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to a lien conference. If no activation fee was paid by January 1, 2014, the law declared that the lien would be dismissed by operation of law. In July, 2013, a group of lien claimants filed a lawsuit against the Department of Industrial Relations and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board asserting that the activation fee violated the Takings Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. At the trial level, the district court judge dismissed the claims for violation of the Takings Clause and the Due

The Fallacy of Competency to Testify

Argue that the burden of establishing competency after an objection lies with the Declarant and/or Lien Claimant rather than the Defendant.


Centralized Mail Center

1435 River Park Drive, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95815

Follow us:

Copyright © Mullen & Filippi 2021