In El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 57, one Evans was injured and 120 days later he engaged a law firm for the purpose of filing a workers' compensation claim. Counsel's investigator learned that a public entity may be involved in a third party claim. A late claim was filed and denied. The superior court granted relief pursuant to section 946.6. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate setting aside the order of the trial court granting relief. The only evidence as to Evans' excusable neglect was a statement by the attorneys in their points and authorities as follows: "It is reasonable that a lay person would not know of the existence of a claim against a governmental entity . . . .'" ( El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, supra, p. 59.) At page 62, the court goes on to say: "Yet there was nothing presented to the trial court to support a finding of the second requirement; no legally cognizable mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect of any kind was shown in connection with the passage of the 100 days. The sole effort to explain the failure to file a timely claim was the conclusionary and argumentative statement of counsel in points and authorities that Evans reasonably could be ignorant of the claim-filing requirements, nothing else. Argument of counsel of course is not evidence. Moreover, a mere lack of knowledge of the claim-filing requirements and its time limitation is insufficient."