Slamer: Dismissal Came Before the Employer’s Reimbursement Motion

An employer sought reimbursement of compensation benefits after the worker’s civil case had already been dismissed with prejudice. The Court of Appeal reversed the reimbursement order because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make it. In Slamer v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, the court directed denial of that motion and expressly reserved what other remedies, if any, the employer could pursue. Opinion pages 14–15.

The opinion was filed September 28, 2026 and certified for publication on October 21, 2026. Its verified docket is No. D086908, California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One. The publication order is included after the opinion in the official PDF.

The motion followed settlement and dismissal

Jennifer Slamer alleged a work-related respiratory injury involving a disinfectant manufactured by Ecolab. Her employer, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, settled her compensation claim and asserted reimbursement liens in the civil litigation. The Slamers settled with Ecolab on April 19, 2023, then dismissed the entire civil action with prejudice on June 1, 2023. The employer moved for reimbursement on February 16, 2024. On April 18, 2025, the trial court ordered payment of the full claimed lien plus interest. Opinion pages 1–3.

The Slamers disputed reimbursement, employer fault, attorney-fee and cost allocation, and interest. During the appeal, the Court of Appeal requested supplemental briefing on the trial court’s jurisdiction after dismissal. That issue controlled the result.

A notice of lien was not an order allowing it

Labor Code section 3857 required the employer to apply for a lien-payment order before satisfaction of judgment or dismissal. The court read that timing requirement with the reimbursement lien recognized by section 3856(b). Here, the reimbursement motion came after the entire case had been dismissed. The resulting order was void. Pages 4–6.

The employer’s earlier lien notices did not preserve every later enforcement route. The court distinguished asserting a lien from having it allowed and perfected in a specific amount. Resolving employer fault or the employer’s share of the worker’s litigation fees and costs may be necessary before that amount can be established. The appellate court did not decide those allocation disputes in this appeal. Pages 12–14.

The court rejected the proposed routes around dismissal

Forfeiture: The employer argued that the Slamers had not adequately raised the timing problem below and questioned whether settlement funds had been disbursed. The court treated the dismissal as decisive regardless of a factual dispute about disbursement. A subject-matter jurisdiction challenge could be raised for the first time on appeal. Consent, waiver or estoppel could not supply that jurisdiction; the worker’s alleged acknowledgment of the lien therefore did not keep the dismissed action open. Pages 6–7.

Agreement to retain jurisdiction: Under Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440, the request had to be express, clear and unambiguous, made while the case was pending in a signed writing or orally before the court. On April 18, 2023, the judge said the court could and would retain jurisdiction under section 664.6. But the settlement had not yet been completed. When the parties reached it on April 19, counsel made no retention request. The earlier discussion and later calendar entry failed to supply the required request. Pages 8–11.

The employer’s own position in the case: The employer had obtained its own dismissal with prejudice on April 11, 2022. Applying Coburg Oil Co. v. Russell (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 200, 204, the court treated it as a stranger to the action after dismissal. It also was not a party to the worker–Ecolab settlement. The court applied the rule described in Sayta that section 664.6 relief belongs to parties to the settlement. The court also lacked the confidential settlement and could not identify a settlement term requiring payment of the lien that the employer could enforce through section 664.6. Pages 11–12.

Enforcement of a money judgment: Labor Code section 3862 permits enforcement of an allowed and perfected lien in the manner provided for money judgments. The employer could not use that provision to supply the missing allowance and perfection. The action ceased to be pending when the appeal period expired on November 28, 2023; the lien-allowance order came on April 18, 2025. With no perfected lien in the pending action, Code of Civil Procedure section 708.440(a) required neither the employer’s consent nor a court order for the Slamers to dismiss. Pages 12–14.

The newer settlement statute did not change these 2023 events

The employer also invoked section 664.6(f)(1), a provision operative January 1, 2025 concerning lien determinations following specified settlement procedures. The court rejected its application to a settlement and dismissal completed 19 months earlier. It also identified the provision’s condition concerning a judgment or dismissal without prejudice pursuant to section 664.6, whereas this case had been dismissed with prejudice. Pages 7–8.

That date and procedural distinction is important when using the decision. A current settlement must be reviewed under its applicable statutory version, actual requests and orders. For the section 664.6 route, compare the actual settlement, timely retention request, dismissal type and applicable statutory version.

The remand did not decide every repayment issue

The court directed the trial court to deny the reimbursement motion for lack of jurisdiction. Because that conclusion resolved the appeal, it did not reach the Slamers’ other grounds for reversal. It expressly took no position on what other remedies, if any, the employer might pursue. Pages 14–15.

A worker should therefore obtain advice before treating the reversed order as permission to spend money subject to an outstanding reimbursement dispute. Likewise, an employer cannot assume that a lien notice alone supplies an enforceable money judgment. The proper forum and procedural history matter to both sides.

Review the closure documents alongside the lien demand

The most useful records are the complaint, party-dismissal orders, lien notices, any order allowing the lien, the settlement, requests to retain jurisdiction and the final dismissal. Place the dates in order before considering the reimbursement calculation. Our work-injury settlement and compensation-lien guide addresses the separate questions of net recovery and future-benefit credit.

Bring the civil closure documents and current reimbursement correspondence for a review of the route being asserted. A dispute about the amount owed and a dispute about a court’s power to order payment require different answers.