Demurrer, Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment Not Permitted. 8 CCR § 10515

What panels did with this rule

Released decisions that named § 10515, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.

• ADJ12009010 · 2026-06-23 · Long Beach District Office8 CCR § 10515

  Determinative passage · p.2Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761.)

  The Board reminded defendant that summary judgment is not permitted and decisions must be based on evidence, rejecting defendant's request for summary judgment on sanctions.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ6788916 · 2025-10-22 · Oakland District Office8 CCR § 10515

  Determinative passage · p.3WCAB Rule 10515 states that: "Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.)

  Petitioners sought a remedy based on pleadings, which is not permitted.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16635028 · 2025-04-14 · Long Beach District Office8 CCR § 10515

  Determinative passage · p.5As to the WCJ's statement that because lien claimant was given the opportunity to file an objection to the notice of intent, lien claimant "has received Due Process in accordance with the Regulations and procedures set forth for addressing nonappearances at a lien conference[]" (Report, p. 3), we remind the WCJ that judgments on the pleadings are not permitted in Workers' Compensation. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10515.)

  The WCJ dismissed the lien without a hearing, violating due process.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ10607341 · 2025-04-03 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10515

  Determinative passage · p.2However, in workers' compensation matters, "[d]emurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) Rather, decisions in workers' compensation cases must be based upon an adequate record after providing all parties an opportunity to be heard, to protect the due process rights of everyone involved. (Lab. Code § 5313; Hamilton, supra, at p. 476; Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].)

  Applied to reject petition amounting to judgment on pleadings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16306548 · 2025-02-10 · Oakland District Office8 CCR § 10515

  Determinative passage · p.4(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) Here, the record reveals that the WCJ granted the Petition for Dismissal without holding a

  Dismissal was akin to summary judgment, which is prohibited, so order was rescinded

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10954617 · 2024-06-12 · Long Beach District Office8 CCR § 10515

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, the WCJ in the F&O refers to defendant's June 28, 2021, Petition to Compel Applicant to Attend the PQME1 and exhibits. However, the Petition to Compel is a motion on the pleadings, akin to a summary judgment motion, which is prohibited by WCAB Rule 10515. After a review of the adjudication file, neither the petition nor its exhibits have been admitted into evidence, the documents are only uploaded into EAMS, but are not marked as admitted into evidence. Thus, there is no record nor evidence in the record as required by Hamilton, supra. Thus, the WCJ must hold a hearing on defendant's request for applicant to be evaluated by a PQME and at that time parties may make their arguments regarding compelling applicant to attend the PQME.

  The Petition to Compel was akin to a prohibited motion on the pleadings and was not admitted into evidence, requiring a hearing.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12226694 · 2024-04-08 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 10515

  Determinative passage · p.2Every issue raised in lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration was an issue that was set to be decided at trial, which was to occur on February 8, 2024. On the eve of trial, rather than allow the trial judge to create a record and decide the issues raised, applicant's attorney instead filed a Petition for Reconsideration. In essence, applicant's attorney requests summary judgment issue in her favor without any record having been created. This is not proper. (§ 5313; see also, Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc); see also, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515 ["Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted."].) It is unclear upon what good-faith basis the Petition for Reconsideration was filed. It appears that the Petition for Reconsideration may have been filed solely to delay the trial proceedings. Accordingly, we will issue an order denying reconsideration and grant removal on our own motion to investigate whether sanctions and/or an award of reasonable expenses, including costs and/or attorney's fees should issue.

  The Petition for Reconsideration was improperly filed on the eve of trial without a record, appearing to be a delay tactic.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12414651 · 2024-04-08 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 10515

  Determinative passage · p.2allow the trial judge to create a record and decide the issues raised, lien claimant instead filed a Petition for Reconsideration. In essence, lien claimant requests summary judgment issue in its favor without any record having been created. This is not proper. (§ 5313; see also, Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc); see also, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515 ["Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted."].) It is unclear upon what good-faith basis the Petition for Reconsideration was filed. It appears that the Petition for Reconsideration may have been filed solely to delay the trial proceedings. Accordingly, we will issue an order denying reconsideration and grant removal on our own motion to investigate whether sanctions and/or an award of reasonable expenses, including costs and/or attorney's fees should issue.

  Petition for Reconsideration was improper as a summary judgment attempt without record.

  Official decision · page 2 →