Weaver, Rebecca, Applicant v. FIRST FOURSQUARE CHURCH OF VAN NUYS; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REBECCA WEAVER, Applicant
vs.
FIRST FOURSQUARE CHURCH OF VAN NUYS; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE
GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants
Adjudication Number: ADJ4661348 (VNO 0347369)
Marina del Rey District Office
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL
Dan Escamilla, specially appearing for himself and on behalf of former lien claimant David
Silver, M.D., seeks removal of the May 8, 2025 trial proceedings and subsequent orders. The May
8, 2025 trial proceeded without the appearance of both Mr. Escamilla and Dr. Silver.
Mr. Escamilla contends that (1) the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks
jurisdiction to conduct any proceedings after its February 6, 2024 denial of reconsideration; (2)
the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) lacks jurisdiction to determine issues
under Labor Code,1 section 4907, which authorizes the removal, denial, or suspension of a hearing
representative; (3) the WCJ should have recused himself from further proceedings in this case; (4)
the WCJ committed prejudicial error by failing to rule on Mr. Escamilla’s continuance request; (5)
the WCJ’s failure to rule on the continuance violated due process; (6) the record of events were
manufactured; and (7) the decision to proceed to trial on May 8, 2025 caused significant prejudice
and irreparable harm.
We received an answer from California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA). CIGA
seeks sanctions, costs, and permanent suspension of Mr. Escamilla as a hearing representative.
We note that CIGA’s answer is 30 pages long and attaches 225 pages of exhibits in violation of
WCAB Rules 10940 and 10945. (Cal Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10940, 10945.)
1 All statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise indicated.

2
The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report)
seeking guidance from the Appeals Board on issues of jurisdiction, testimonial evidence from the
WCJ, and the authority to revoke Mr. Escamilla’s privilege to practice before the WCAB.
We have considered the Petition for Removal, the Answer, the contents of the Report, and
we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we deny removal.
FACTS
As the WCJ stated in his Report:
This case involves a specific injury of December 2, 1992, and was resolved for
a Compromise and Release on December 21, 2019 for $358,085. There were
two liens filed for Dr. Silver. The more recently filed lien was settled by an order
from WCJ Jackson on 02-21-2019 according to EAMS ID 69515899; this order
of 02-21-2019 stated the following on the face of the order: “Dr. Silver has 1
other lien pending—11/7/97 – 11/12/02.” This “other” lien is the older lien of
Dr. Silver and is dated 03-29-2005 and was filed in 2005. See EAMS ID
27534395, and it was for dates of service of 11-07-1997 through 11-12-2002, as
indicated in the 2005 lien document and as further indicated in the order of WCJ
Jackson of 02-21-2019. This older lien is the lien which has seen so much
litigation in the last five years or so. No LC4903.05 (c) declaration was ever
filed for this older lien of Dr. Silver and it was, or should have been, dismissed
by operation of law on July 3, 2017 at 5:01 p.m. And yet, like a relentless weed
it has had a life of its own.
This older lien of Doctor David Silver was initially taken to trial before WCJ
Walker, who found that lien claimant Doctor David Silver was not entitled to
payment in excess of the fee schedule. Please see the Decision of WCJ Walker
dated January 16, 2020. The lien representative for Doctor David Silver filed a
Petition for Reconsideration which was denied. Several years later, the lien
representative for Doctor David Silver, Dan Escamilla, filed a somewhat unique
pleading which he called a Petition to Reopen.
Mr. Escamilla also filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed on March 23,
2023. The lien representative for Doctor David Silver argued that the order of
Judge Walker was not a final order. Judge Walker had retired, so the case was
set before WCJ Spoeri, who took this matter to trial. In the trial by WCJ Spoeri
in 2023, Trial Stipulation Number 4 indicated, “Dr. David Silver filed a lien
dated 03-29-2005 on or about 03-29-2005 ….” In the same trial, by WCJ Spoeri,
Trial Stipulation Number 17 indicated that “[t]he EAMS file of documents does
not contain an LC4903.05 Declaration from lien claimant Dr. David Silver ….”
WCJ Spoeri found that there was no evidence of a filing before 07-03-2017 of
a declaration comporting with Labor Code section 4903.05; this meant that the
pre-2017 lien of Doctor David Silver had been dismissed by operation of law,
and therefore WCJ Spoeri had no jurisdiction over this lien because Dr.

3
Silver/Dan Escamilla had failed to file a declaration comporting with LC
4903.05 before the 07-03-2017 deadline. See EAMS 77376432.
The lien claimant for Doctor David Silver filed a Petition for Reconsideration of
WCJ Spoeri’s Findings of Fact on November 20, 2023 (EAMS 49451879). The
Commissioners indicated that they agreed with Judge Spoeri that Judge
Walker’s January 16, 2020 Findings of Fact were a final judgment and Judge
Spoeri had no jurisdiction over the lien (EAMS 77616164). Mr. Escamilla filed
a Petition For Reconsideration.
The Petition for Reconsideration was denied on February 6, 2024 and the lien
claimant appears to be arguing that on this date, the WCAB lost jurisdiction over
anything having to do with the lien of Doctor David Silver, including the WCAB
losing jurisdiction over any issues concerning penalties, sanctions and costs
against Dr. Silver and/or his representative. Lien claimant Doctor David Silver
and his representative did not cite any case authority for this proposition that the
WCAB lost jurisdiction over any collateral issues concerning this lien, such as
sanctions, penalties and costs.
On 5/29/2024 the defendant filed a petition for sanctions and costs, reflected by
EAMS number 52146024. At the same time the defendant filed a request with
Chief Judge Levy that Judge Spoeri recuse himself because he was a percipient
witness to some of the events alleged in the petition for sanctions against Doctor
David Silver and/or Dan Escamilla and that the defendant wanted to call Judge
Spoeri as a witness. This request was never granted. Please see EAMS
52146025. No Petition For Disqualification has ever been filed in this case. A
DOR was filed on 6/27/2004 reflected by EAMS number 52628349.
On September 17, 2024, Dan Escamilla sent correspondence reflected by EAMS
number 53916973. In this correspondence of September 17, 2024, Mr. Escamilla
stated in a letter directed to Judge Robert Spoeri, with a carbon copy to the
defense attorney, that Mr. Escamilla was upset that the defendant was accusing
him of a pattern of conduct that constitutes vexatious litigation. Mr. Escamilla
felt that the allegations by the defense attorney were “frivolous.” Mr. Escamilla
also stated “Your Honor has already declined to find jurisdiction to decide this
case. And without jurisdiction over the parties, the court does not have power to
determine the case. See Airlines Reporting Corp v. Renda 177 Cal.App. 4th 14
at 20 (2009).” Mr. Escamilla also added that Doctor Silver “is no longer a party
to this case and we are no longer a party representative in this case. We consider
this matter fully and finally resolved as of February 6, 2024 when the Board
denied [the Petition] of [For] Reconsideration (EAMS 77616164). We object to
the May 29, 2024 petition by defendant (EAMS 52146024) on jurisdictional
grounds and do not intend to make any further appearances in this case. In any
event, the next hearing is set as an MSC on September 14, 2024, and lien
claimants are not to are not required to appear at these hearings.” (Emphasis
added).

4
Mr. Escamilla missed three Mandatory Settlement Conferences and one trial
date in late 2024 and early 2025. WCJ Spoeri outlined this portion of the history
of the case when he sent a notice of intention to go forward with trial on April
2, 2025 (EAMS 79025028).
This case came up for trial on May 8, 2025. Mr. Escamilla and Legal Service
Bureau had notice of this trial. They also had notice of all prior hearings in this
case which Legal Service Bureau and/or Dan Escamilla failed to attend. WCJ
Spoeri reviewed the file shortly before May 8, 2025, so that he could be prepared
for what he knew was going to be a challenging trial. Sometime on the trial date
of May 8th, 2025 a written request for a continuance reached the EAMS
computer filing system for the WCAB; WCJ Spoeri did not look at the EAMS
computer filing system on the morning of trial on May 8, 2025, because he had
already prepared for the trial and was busy with appearing on a zoom-like
computer platform known as Court Call (which the WCAB uses for virtual
appearances) for what was scheduled to be a virtual trial in this case. The virtual
appearance arguably would have made it easy for Mr. Escamilla to appear. Mr.
Escamilla never asked the defense attorney for a continuance.
The defense attorney and his witness were on the Court Call virtual trial platform
with WCJ Spoeri starting at 8:30. Judge Spoeri even got on shortly before 8:30.
The defense attorney had no knowledge that Mister Escamilla was asking for a
continuance. WCJ Spoeri asked the defense attorney to call up Dan Escamilla
and to ask him where he was and if he would please appear on Court Call. The
defense attorney, Mr. Jeffrey Sardell called Mr. Escamilla’s office at WCJ
Spoeri’s request and left a message and had no response. This is set out in the
minutes of hearing document dated 5/8/2025.
WCJ Spoeri inconvenienced the defense attorney and his witness to wait till the
afternoon to give Mr. Escamilla additional time. The parties did not go on the
record until 2:45 PM. For almost the entire time between 8:30 AM and about
3:45 PM on 5/8/2025, with the exception of a lunch break, WCJ Spoeri was on
the court call line for virtual trials. Mr. Escamilla never appeared. No one from
his office appeared, no one made a phone call to the WCAB-MDR, and no one
from his office called by telephone into the Court Call platform. (Report, pp. 3-
6.)
DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
The procedural history in this matter is long and therefore confusing. 	We start with the
January 16, 2020 Findings of Fact by WCJ Walker. WCJ Walker found in relevant part:
3. Lien Claimant Dr. David Silver did not meet his burden of proof to establish
that his charges were reasonable.

5
4. Lien Claimant Dr. David Silver is not entitled to payment in excess of the fee
schedule due to extraordinary circumstances related to any unusual nature of the
services rendered to Applicant.
5. It is found that the Official Medical File schedule is applicable to the charges
of Lien Claimant Dr. David Silver.
6. The issues of penalty and/or interest owed is moot.
7. All petitions for costs and sanctions and for delaying conduct are denied.
(Findings of Fact dated January 16, 2020, Findings nos. 3-7.)
On February 10, 2020, Legal Service Bureau/Mr. Escamilla, on behalf of Dr. Silver, filed
a petition for reconsideration of the January 	16, 2020 Findings of 	Fact. 	(Petition for
Reconsideration filed February 10, 2020.) 	On March 17, 2020, the Appeals Board denied the
petition for reconsideration. 	(Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration dated
March 17, 2020.) No writ of review of the March 17, 2020 denying reconsideration was filed. At
that point, the January 16, 2020 Findings of Fact became final and Dr. Silver’s lien, as well as the
issue of penalties, sanctions, and costs, were adjudicated.
More than three years later, on May 23, 2023, Legal Service Bureau/Mr. Escamilla, on
behalf of Dr. Silver, filed a petition to reopen, thereby submitting themselves again to the
jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. 	(Petition to Reopen dated May 23,
2023.) A trial was held on November 6, 2023 on the issues raised in the petition to reopen. At
trial, the parties stipulated: “All claims for both sides on penalties, sanctions and costs are
bifurcated 	with jurisdiction reserved.” 	(Minutes of 	Hearing and 	Summary of 	Evidence
(MOH/SOE) dated November 6, 2023, Finding no. 24; Findings of Fact dated November 20, 2023,
Stipulated Findings of Fact no. 24 [“All claims for both sides on penalties, sanctions and costs are
bifurcated with jurisdiction reserved.”].)
WCJ Spoeri issued a Findings of Fact on November 20, 2023 and found that “the Findings
of Fact of WCJ Walker of 01-16-2020 are a final order/judgment on the matter of the lien of Dr.
David Silver and preclude further trial-level proceedings on the lien of Dr. David Silver.”
(Findings of Fact dated November 20, 2023, Finding no. 3.)
Legal Service Bureau/Mr. Escamilla filed a petition for reconsideration/removal of the
November 20, 2023 Findings of Fact. (Petition for Reconsideration/Removal dated December 8,
2023.) 	On February 6, 2024, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration and stated, “We agree

6
with WCJ Spoeri that WCJ Walker’s January 16, 2020 Findings of Fact is a final judgment.”
(Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration dated February 6, 2024.) Thus, the issue
of Dr. Silver’s lien was resolved at this point. However, the issues of penalties, sanction, and costs
were not resolved since the parties stipulated to bifurcate these issues “with jurisdiction reserved.”
Thus, the WCAB still has jurisdiction over the issues of penalties, sanctions, and costs that have
been filed since the May 23, 2023 petition to reopen.
In light of the above conclusion, and given Mr. Escamilla’s failure to show at several court
proceedings despite notice, and in light of the Notice of Intention to Go Forward with Trial dated
April 2, 2025, we conclude that the trial on May 8, 2025 was properly held. The record indicates
that this trial was continued to November 20, 2025, at which time Dr. Silver and his representative
may cross-examine the trial testimony taken on May 8, 2025.
B. Labor Code Section 4903.05
Sections 4903.05(c)(2) and (3) provide:
(2) Lien claimants shall have until July 1, 2017, to file a declaration pursuant to
paragraph (1) for any lien claim filed before January 1, 2017, for expenses
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 4903 that is subject to a filing fee under
this section.
(3) The failure to file a signed declaration under this subdivision shall result in
the dismissal of the lien with prejudice by operation of law. Filing of a false
declaration shall be grounds for dismissal with prejudice after notice.
(§ 4903.05(c)(2) and (3).)
The lien at issue here is dated March 29, 2005, which is before January 1, 2017. However,
the issue of subject matter jurisdiction was raised sua sponte by the WCJ and not until the
November 20, 2023 Report. (Findings of Fact dated November 20, 2023, Finding nos. 1 and 2.)
Subject matter jurisdiction is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof of an affirmative defense
rests with the party holding the affirmative of the issue. 	Here, neither lien claimant nor CIGA
raised this issue.
Furthermore, while the failure to file a declaration results in the dismissal of a lien by
operation of law, WCJ Walker adjudicated the issue of the lien in her January 16, 2020 Findings
of Fact, and no party objected to her jurisdiction to do so. 	She also adjudicated the issues of
existing claims for penalties, sanctions, and costs. 	Once we issued our decision denying
reconsideration on March 17, 2020, those findings became final because they were not challenged.

7
Thus, while CIGA could have raised the issue of whether the lien had been dismissed by operation
of law, it did not, and we decline to do so now.
The issues here are penalties, sanctions, and costs after May 23, 2023, when lien claimant
placed himself under the jurisdiction of the WCAB. There was no remaining issue on the lien then
and although ordinarily, a dismissal of a lien ends all proceedings with the lien claimant, given the
unique and extensive procedural facts in this matter, and lien claimant’s actions in submitting
himself to workers’ compensation proceedings, we conclude that the WCAB maintains jurisdiction
to adjudicate the issues of penalties, sanction, and costs after May 23, 2023.
C. WCAB Rule 10360(b)
WCAB Rule 10360(b) provides:
(b) The testimony of a judicial or quasi-judicial officer shall be given only on
the terms and conditions ordered by the presiding workers' compensation judge
of the district office having venue, or by the Appeals Board, after the filing of a
"Petition to Compel the Testimony of a Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Officer."
(1) The petition to compel shall set forth with specificity the facts (or
alleged facts) and law that support the petition.
(2) The petition to compel shall be verified under penalty of perjury.
(3) The petition to compel shall be served on all other parties, on all lien
claimants whose liens are presently pending in issue in the underlying
claim to which the petition relates and on the Legal Unit of the Division
of Workers' Compensation (DWC-Legal Unit), together with a proof of
service.
(4) A petition to compel that does not meet all of the foregoing
requirements may be summarily dismissed or denied. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § 10360.)
Here, no Petition to Compel the Testimony of a Judicial Officer has been filed and therefore
there is no order from the presiding judge on the terms and conditions of such testimony.
D. Labor Code Section 4907
Section 4907 provides:
(a) The privilege of any person, except attorneys admitted to practice in the
Supreme Court of the state, to appear in any proceeding as a representative of
any party before the appeals board, or any of its workers’ compensation
administrative law judges, may, after a hearing, be removed, denied, or
suspended by the appeals board for either of the following:

8
(1) For a violation of this chapter, the Rules of the Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Board, or the Rules of the Administrative Director.
(2) For other good cause, including, but not limited to, failure to pay final
order of sanctions, attorney’s fees, or costs issued under Section 5813.
(b) For purposes of this section, nonattorney representatives shall be held to the
same professional standards of conduct as attorneys. (§ 4907.)
We agree that the issue of whether Mr. Escamilla’s privilege to appear before the WCAB
is an issue for the Appeals Board and not the district offices. However, we decline to consider this
issue at this time as there is no such petition before us, no hearing on the issue, and no findings of
facts as to the alleged underlying conduct.
E. CIGA’s Request For Sanctions And Costs
In its answer to Legal Service Bureau/Mr. Escamilla’s petition for removal, CIGA seeks
sanctions, costs, and permanent suspension of Mr. Escamilla as a hearing representative. These
are issues that were being litigated at the May 8, 2025 trial and not properly before us at the
moment. (MOH/SOE dated May 8, 2025, p. 3:3-16.) The issue raised in the petition for removal
is one of jurisdiction to proceed on the issues of penalties, sanctions, and costs, and as discussed
above, we conclude that the WCAB has jurisdiction on these issues.
Accordingly, there was no prejudice or irreparable harm in the May 8, 2025 proceedings
and we therefore deny the petition for removal.

9
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Legal Service Bureau/Mr. Escamilla’s Petition for Removal dated
June 3, 2025 is DENIED.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
/s/ CRAIG L. SNELLINGS, COMMISSIONER/
I CONCUR,
/s/ ANNE SCHMITZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 	/
/s/ JOSEPH V. CAPURRO, COMMISSIONER 	/
DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 25, 2025
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT
THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
DAVID SILVER, M.D.
LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU/DAN ESCAMILLA
FLOYD SKEREN MANUKIAN LANGEVIN, LLP
LSM/ara
I certify that I affixed the official seal of
the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
to this original decision on this date.
KL