Robin Chorn M.D. is a licensed physician and surgeon who provides medical services to workers’ compensation applicants. On November 20, 2013, he filed a class action civil complaint contending that the subdivisions of Labor Code section 4903 imposing medical lien activation and filing fees (§§ 4903.05, 4903.06) and restrictions on payment of awards to assignees (§ 4903.8) violated Article I, sections 3, 7, and 9 and Article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution. He further alleged that the adoption of emergency regulations to implement the lien activation fee provision violated the California Administrative Procedure Act. (Gov. Code § 11340 et seq.)
The superior court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Chorn’s challenge to the statute and denied the motion without considering the merits. Chorn timely appealed. The Court of Appeal sustained the trial court in the unpublished case of Chorn v Brown.
Labor Code 5955 provides, “No court of this state, except the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal to the extent herein specified, has jurisdiction . . . to restrain, enjoin, or interfere with the appeals board in the performance of its duties but a writ of mandate shall lie from the Supreme Court or a court of appeal in all proper cases.” The trial court stated that the California Constitution confers on the Legislature “plenary power, unlimited by any provision of this Constitution,” to establish a system of workers’ compensation: including the power to create a system for trial and resolution of workers’ compensation disputes. The trial court accordingly concluded that the jurisdictional provisions of article VI of the California Constitution, which grant original jurisdiction to superior courts over most cases, were inapplicable to workers’ compensation disputes.
The Court of Appeal agreed saying “In this action, an injunction enjoining respondents from enforcing the challenged provisions of the statute would interfere with the appeals board’s performance of its duties.” The courts of appeal and Supreme Court have exclusive jurisdiction over Chorn’s challenge to the validity of the statute.
The order of the trial court was affirmed