Test

1. 2
3
4
5
6
7
BLANCA RUIZ,
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. ADJ8969505
(Van Nuys District Office)
Applicant,
vs.
BEST AMERICAN HOSPITALITY, INC., dba
8 CHURCH'S CHICKEN; PMA INSURANCE,
OPINION AND DECISION
AFTER
RECONSIDERATION
9
IO
11
12
Defendants,
TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP,
Lien claimant.
13 We previously granted the petition of lien claimant Tri-County Medical Group for
14 reconsideration of the August 25, 2015 Findings And Order ofthe workers' compensation administrative
15 law judge (WCJ) in order to further study the record and issues. In his decision, the WCJ found in
16 pertinent part that lien claimant's lien ''is barred by [the 18 months limitation period in] Labor Code
17 section 4903.5."I
18 Lien claimant contends that the WCJ misapplied section 4903.5(a) in dismissing its lien because
19 it first provided services to applicant before the July 1, 2013 date specified in the statute, and for that
20 reason the three year limitation period in section 4903.5(a) applies from the last date it provided service
21 on August 12, 2013, consistent with the holding of the Appeals Board panel in Kindelberger v. City of
22 Los Angeles (ADJ586942, May 24, 2013) [2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.O. Lexis 209] (Kinde/berger), and
23 not the 18 month limitations period for services provided on or after July 1, 2013 as was applied by the
24 WCJ.
25
26
27
1
Further statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise stated. Section 4903.5(a) provides as follows: "A lien
claim for expenses as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 4903 shall not be filed after three years from the date the services
were provided, nor more than 18 months after the date the services were provided, if the services were provided on or after
July I, 2013."

2. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
An answer was received from defendant.
The WCJ provided a Report And Recommendation Of Workers' Compensation Administrative
Law Judge On Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that reconsideration be denied.
Having carefully reviewed the record and considered the allegations of the petition for
reconsideration, the answer and the WCJ's Report, the WCJ's August 25, 20 l5 decision is affirmed as
the Decision After Reconsideration for the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated by this
reference, and for the reasons below.
DISCUSSION
The background facts are included in the WCJ's Report and are not restated herein. In essence,
lien claimant continuously provided applicant with services from April I 5, 20I 3 to August I2, 20I 3.
Lien claimant filed its lien claim on June 16, 2015, which is more than 18 months after the last date of
service on August 12, 2013, but Jess than three years after that date. Under the WCJ's construction of
section 4903.5(a), lien claimant was obligated to file its lien claim within 18 months of the last date
services were provided, and because the lien claim was filed more than 18 months after that date, the lien
is barred by the section 4903.5(a) statute oflimitations.
Applying the 18 month limitations period in this case is not unreasonable because the
amendments to section 4903.5(a) became effective on January 1, 2013, and lien claimant had a
reasonable time within which to timely file its lien after that effective date.
In Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations
Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1091-1092, the Supreme Court explained that it is not improper to apply a
shortened time period to a cause of action if a party has a "reasonable time" within which to timely file
its claim, writing as follows:
Legislation that shortens a limitations period is considered procedural and
is applied retroactively to preexisting causes of action, so long as parties
are given a reasonable time in which to sue. (Brown v. Bleiberg (1982) 32
Cal.3d 426, 437 (186 Cal.Rptr. 228, 651 P.2d 8I5]; Rosefield Packing Co.
v. Superior Court (1935) 4 Cal.2d 120, 122-123 [47 P.2d 716); Carlson v.
Blatt (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 646, 650-651 [105 Cal.Rptr. 2d 42].) When
necessary to provide a reasonable time to sue, a shortened limitations
period may be applied prospectively so that it commences on the effective
date of the statute, rather than on the date the cause of action accrued.
RUIZ, Blanca 2

3. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(Rubinstein v. Barnes (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 276, 281-282 [240 Cal.Rptr.
535]; Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Cole (1965) 235 Cal. App. 2d 40, 42-43 [44
Cal.Rptr. 889].)
The Appeals Board applied this principle when it addressed the expiration of the right to
vocational rehabilitation in Weiner v. Ralphs Company (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 736 (en bane). Citing
Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Court (1935) 4 Cal.2d 120, 122-123, the Appeals Board wrote as
follows:
By providing in April 2004 that section 139.5 would not be repealed until
January 1, 2009, the Legislature, in effect, 'saved' both pending and
impending vocational rehabilitation claims for a period of nearly five
years. This gave affected employees a reasonable time within which to
avail themselves of vocational rehabilitation before the repeal would take
effect. (74 Cal.Comp.Cases at 749; cf. Villatoro v. Kern Labor
Contracting (ADJ3637976, July 17, 2012) [lien claimant had reasonable
time to file claim before it was barred by new limitations period].)
The view that a lien claim is timely if filed within the longer statutory period was earlier rejected
by panels of the Appeals Board in Archibald et. al. v. RCD Painting et. al. (Access Mediquip)
(ADJ6827249, November 7, 2014) [2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 587] (Archibald) and in
Guerrero v. Easy Staffing (ADJ8741561, March 18, 2016) [2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 123]
(Guerrero). In upholding the WCJ's decision that the lien claims in Archibald were time-barred under
section 4903.5(a) because the services were provided before July l, 2013, but the liens were not filed
within three years of the dates of service, the panel noted that the 18 month limitations period in section
4903 .5(a) applied to services "provided on or after July 1, 2013," writing further as follows:
Ill
I II
Any alternative interpretation would be absurd... [and] ...would lead to the
nonsensical result that, if services were provided on or after July 1, 2013, a
lien could be filed either three years after the date the services were
provided or 18 months after the date the services were provided. We
cannot attribute to the Legislature an intention to create two alternative
statutes of limitations for the exact same services. (3:21-4:3, italics in
original.)
RUIZ, Blanca 3

4. Similarly, in Guerrero the panel majority upheld the decision of the WCJ that the lien claim in
2 that case was barred by the I8 month section 4903.5(a) statute of limitations notwithstanding the fact that
3 services were provided by the lien claimant both before and after July 1, 2013. Sufficient time has
4 passed since the enactment of the new limitations period to address the concern expressed by the dissent
5 in Guerrero that lien claimants receive reasonable notice of the need to timely file their lien claims
6 within 18 months of the last date services were provided.
7 In this case, services were provided by lien claimant after the July l, 2013 date of implementation
8 of the 18 month statute of limitations. For that reason, lien claimant was obligated by section 4903.5(a)
9 to file its lien claim within 18 months after the last date of service in August 2013. Lien claimant did not
IO timely file its lien within the allowed statutory period under section 4903.5(a), and the lien claim was
11 properly found to be barred by the WCJ for that reason.
12 I I I
13 I I I
14 Ill
15 I II
16 I I I
17 I I I
18 II I
19 II I
20 II I
21 II I
22 Ill
23 Ill
24 I II
25 I II
26 I II
27 I I I
RUIZ, Blanca 4

5. For the foregoing reasons,
2 IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals
3 Board that the August 25, 2015 Findings And Order of the workers' compensation administrative Jaw
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
judge is AFFIRMED.
I CONCUR,
,,··"
,,.~..·'~"···----~­.,,...,.,..,..,........
MARGUERITE SWEENEY
....,
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
DEIDRA E. LOWE
19 DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
20 SEP O82011'
21 SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR
ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
22
23 TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP
INNOVATIVE MEDICAL MANAGEMENT
24 HEALTHCARE RESOURCE GROUP
25
LOUIS BERMEO
26
27 JFS/abs
RUIZ, Blanca 5