LC 4615-stayed liens (California)

[wcscout]

are judges allowing the issue of the stay to be litigated?

[LawAdvocate]

Nope. You can settle them informally if you want, but why would you?

[jonbrissman]

Right now, how WCJs are supposed to deal with indicted providers is - if there is a disputed stay, they are to afford them due process to show how/why this particular lien should NOT be subject to the stay. If they don't raise the issue at Lien Conference and then bring someone to testify at lien trial as to how this lien should not be subject to the stay, WCJs are to recognize ALL liens filed by that indicted provider as stayed, meaning that they cannot pursue that lien until such time as they are acquitted, or, if they are convicted, then the liens are suspended and the provider must prove in a separate Special Adjudication Proceeding (usually a consolidation, handled by a different WCAB/DIR Unit) that the various liens have nothing whatsoever to do with the crime for which they were convicted.

By the way, LC 4615(g) does not make sense to me.

I also do not understand why interest on the lien amount should not be reinstated retroactively when and if the provider is exonerated of all criminal charges (likely a rare occurrence). In that event, defendants should not be given free use of the providers' funds while unfounded charges were pending.

[chirple]

Jon: 4615 (g) is for the provider who is convicted, liens consolidated and then he/she is charged with a new crime. The new charges will not stop the consolidation from going forward. Example: a criminal conviction for bad acts through 2015. Plea bargain agrees to dismiss all liens. Liens consolidated. Provider violates terms of probation by appearing at the lien consolidation hearing to collect and refuses to dismiss. New charges. The liens are not stayed again.

Consolidated liens cannot be stayed again.

(g) Notwithstanding this section, the filing of new or additional criminal charges against a physician, practitioner, or provider who has been suspended pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 139.21 shall not stay liens that are subject to consolidation and adjudication pursuant to subdivisions (e) to (i), inclusive, of Section 139.21, unless a determination has been made pursuant to subdivision (i) of Section 139.21 that a lien did not arise from the conduct that subjected the physician, practitioner, or provider to suspension.

[jonbrissman]

Chirple, thanks. So if it is determined that some consolidated liens are unrelated to the conduct that caused the suspension, those liens are apparently carved out of the adjudication and then stayed by the newly-filed charges. Luckily, no one has asked me to diagram the subsection (g) sentence.

[chirple]

I would say, yes, Jon.