In Greener v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1028, the California Supreme Court construed section 5955 and held that a superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an action to declare provisions of the WCA invalid under the California Constitution where such relief would interfere with the appeals board in the performance of its duties. (Greener, supra, 6 Cal. 4th at pp. 1032-1033, 1040-1044.) In Greener, the plaintiffs--unlicensed attorneys--commenced a superior court action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the appeals board. The action challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the WCA that terminated the power of the appeals board to make awards of, and allow liens for, attorneys' fees to applicant representatives who were not attorneys. (Greener, supra, 6 Cal. 4th at p. 1033.) Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the amendments were invalid under the federal and state constitutions. (Ibid.) The court first addressed whether, in light of section 5955, the Legislature intended to reserve solely to the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the constitutional validity of provisions of the workers' compensation law. (Greener, supra, 6 Cal. 4th at p. 1037.) The court concluded that it did. The 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. (Ibid.) The 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. (Greener, supra, 6 Cal. 4th at p. 1037.) The court further noted that section 3.5 of article III of the California Constitution withholds from administrative agencies the power to determine the constitutional validity of a statute. (Id. at p. 1038.) The court accordingly concluded that the appeals board must comply with the statutes the plaintiffs sought to challenge until an appellate court has considered and upheld a constitutional challenge to the statutes. (Ibid.)