Where this sits
- Chapter 4.5.
- Division of Workers' Compensation
- Subchapter 2. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board--Rules and Practice Procedure
- Article 13. Hearings
The regulation, as printed
(a) Any objection to a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed shall be filed and served within 10 calendar days after service of the declaration. The objection shall set forth, under penalty of perjury, the specific reason why the case should not be set or why the requested proceedings are inappropriate. (b) A false declaration or certification filed under this rule by any party, petitioner, attorney or non-attorney representative may give rise to proceedings under Labor Code section 134 for contempt or Labor Code section 5813 for sanctions. (c) If a party is represented by an attorney or non-attorney representative, any objection to the Declaration of Readiness to Proceed shall be executed by the attorney or non-attorney representative. (d) If a party has received a copy of the Declaration of Readiness to Proceed and has not filed an objection under this rule, that party shall be deemed to have waived any and all objections to proceeding on the issues specified in the declaration, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Authority and history
Note: Authority cited: Sections 133, 5307, 5309 and 5708, Labor Code. Reference: Sections 134, 5500.3, 5502 and 5813, Labor Code.
1. Renumbering of former section 10416 to section 10744, including amendment of section and Note, filed 12-17-2019; operative 1-1-2020. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11351 (Register 2019, No. 51).
What panels did with this rule
Released decisions that named § 10744, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.
- ADJ17262639 · 2025-09-29 · San Jose District Office8 CCR § 10744
Determinative passage · p.2(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10744(d).) The rule states: "If a party has received a copy of the Declaration of Readiness to Proceed and has not filed an objection under this rule, that party shall be deemed to have waived any and all objections to proceeding on the issues specified in the declaration, absent extraordinary circumstances." (Ibid.) WCAB Rule 10744 can only be construed as the parties waiving objection to the WCJ setting the matter for trial. Per Labor Code section 5700, both the WCJ and the Appeals Board retain the discretion to determine whether a matter should be set for trial or whether a continuance is warranted. We would further note that petitions for removal may only be filed where there is a good faith and/or non-frivolous basis to allege irreparable harm or substantial prejudice. Furthermore, misstating the court's rulings or otherwise misleading the court in a petition is both grounds for denying the petition and may constitute bad faith and/or frivolous conduct. (Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945.) Accordingly, we deny removal.
The Appeals Board interpreted this rule as waiving objections to trial setting, but not removing the WCJ's discretion to grant continuances.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ15289923 · 2024-12-13 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 10744
Determinative passage · p.8The upshot is that we are left with a rather novel situation to adjudicate a facially defective DOR with an unclear objective, paired with a corresponding failure by the opposing party to either timely object or clarify the other party's intentions. Although we understand the WCJ's frustration at applicant's failure to object and the corresponding conclusion that this failure waived any objection pursuant to WCAB Rule 10744, subdivision (d), on balance we believe that these are precisely the sort of "extraordinary circumstances" that the Rule contemplates, and carves out an exception for. It is not clear to us why applicant should bear the burden of what are evidently mutual mistakes and inattention in conjunction with the filing of the DOR. To endorse the conclusion that applicant waived the right to obtain PQME reports by failure to object would in effect reward defendant for filing a defective DOR that obscured its true intentions.
The Appeals Board found extraordinary circumstances excusing waiver due to defective DOR and failure to object, justifying further development of the record.
Official decision · page 8 →
Rules beside this one
Article 13. Hearings — regulations rarely stand alone, and the answer is often two sections away.