tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8489363879633129568.post1897501942723945063..comments2023-11-13T11:54:56.769-08:00Comments on DePaolo's World: Wu Decision Could Force RenegotiationsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02446191842560064784noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8489363879633129568.post-81515157880964140022013-11-08T07:42:45.348-08:002013-11-08T07:42:45.348-08:00David, Thank you for your great article. The prel...David, Thank you for your great article. The preliminary injunction against the imposition of Lien Activation Fee situation is mind boggling (for me) for all the reasons you stated: what will happen to all the monies we've already paid, what about liens that weren't pursued, how do we now navigate through EAMS... and how do we compensate ourselves for the literally hundreds of employee hours we have spent trying to identify "valid" liens for our clients which require the $100 fee prior to 1-1-14. I guess that was just another completely useless waste of our time. As a representative of lien claimants, this is the one aspect of SB863 that has felt entirely unfair and predatory. The problem of massive, unwarranted lien filings and litigation might be better addressed with more uniform and consistent WCAB rules. The various boards differ so much in their application of rules to lien claimants that we virtually have to treat each board as its own separate monarchy, and each judge's idiosyncrasies as unique game changers. However, when the boards uniformly started awarding costs and sanctions for bad behavior, we all took notice and made every effort to comply with those clear directives. It's the wiggle room from board to board, judge to judge, that creates the game plan for some providers to "throw it out there and see if it sticks". Lorihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08224539085012551724noreply@blogger.com