Notices of Intention and Orders after Notices of Intention. 8 CCR § 10832

What panels did with this rule

Released decisions that named § 10832, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.

• ADJ19334270 · 2026-06-05 · San Bernardino District Office8 CCR § 10832

  Determinative passage · p.4II. WCAB Rule 10305(c) defines "Appear" as "to act on behalf of any party." Section 5700 clarifies that an appearance may be by the party or their agent. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752(a).) Section 5813 authorizes the WCJ to impose sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs for "bad- faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Lab. Code, § 5813(a).) The order of sanctions can be made "after written application by the party seeking sanctions or upon the appeal board's own motion." (Lab. Code, § 5813(b).) In order for the WCJ to impose sanctions and costs, the alleged offending party or attorney must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832(a)(3).) Bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to

  The WCJ must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing sanctions; here, the record did not establish that applicant's attorney received notice or had an opportunity to be heard.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13289648 · 2025-12-23 · Riverside District Office8 CCR § 10832

  Determinative passage · p.5(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 485 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1273].) It is also well established that although a NIT may be provided alongside Minutes of Hearing, it is a separate and distinct document and should clearly indicate 1) that it is a NIT; 2) the parties involved; 3) the relevant dates and/or timelines; and 4) the basis for the NIT. Here, rather than issue a separate and proper NIT, the WCJ specified his intent to dismiss applicant's case and issue sanctions and costs within the May 3, 2021 Minutes of Hearing. As the NIT was not validly issued, the NIT, along with the resulting Order, are void ab initio. We note, however, that even if the NIT had been properly issued, the Order is fatally defective as it references WCAB Rule 10755 as authority for the dismissal, which applies mandatory settlement conferences, not trials. The WCJ also designated defendant for service in

  The WCJ did not issue a proper NIT as required, so the dismissal was void.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ17787921 · 2025-10-03 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10832

  Determinative passage · p.4(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b).) WCAB Rule 10832 authorizes a workers' compensation judge to issue a notice of intention

  The Board discussed the procedural rules governing the issuance and service of notices of intention to impose sanctions.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8511460 · 2025-09-08 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 10832

  Determinative passage · p.4II. The Order of Dismissal is void by operation of law as explained below. First, the WCJ may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including allowing, disallowing or dismissing a lien. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (a)(1).) Specifically, the Appeals Board or a workers' compensation judge may order a lien dismissed for non-appearance by the lien claimant. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10888(a).) Before issuing an Order dismissing a lien, the Appeals Board or WCJ "shall issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the lien claim consistent with rule 10832 that provides at least 10 days for the lien claimant to file and serve a response showing good cause why an Order dismissing the lien should not issue." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10888(e).) Additionally, a "dismissal for failure to appear at a hearing shall only issue if the lien claimant was provided with notice of the lien conference or lien trial." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10888(c).) However, an "order with a clause rendering the order null and void if an objection is received is not a Notice of Intention...." (Cal.

  The Order of Dismissal was void because it did not comply with these notice and procedural requirements.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16824578 · 2025-05-12 · Sacramento District Office8 CCR § 10832

  Determinative passage · p.4II. The Appeals Board "has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards.... At any time, upon notice and after an opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor. (Lab. Code, § 5803.) Further, WCAB Rule 10832 states the Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including dismissing an application. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832(a).) However, there must be a complete record for our review of the case. "[A] proper record enables any reviewing tribunal, be it the Board on reconsideration or a court on further appeal, to understand the basis for the decision." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66

  The rule authorizes the Appeals Board to dismiss applications and issue notices of intention for proper purposes.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16697404 · 2025-05-09 · Sacramento District Office8 CCR § 10832

  Determinative passage · p.8The WCJ's decision must be based on "admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 476), but the NIT issued here was not supported by an adequate evidentiary record. The NIT is invalid, too, because the WCJ denied defendant's request to issue an NIT for failure to appear on November 4, 2024, and yet relied on the failure to appear on November 4, as a basis for the December 16, 2024 NIT. As nothing had changed between those two dates, there was no legal basis for the WCJ to reverse her prior order. The NIT was based on applicant's failure to appear at two hearings, but there is no adequate evidence in the record that applicant was noticed for these hearings, so that there was no legal basis for the NIT. Under these circumstances, there was no legal basis for the NIT to issue, and the NIT is void. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.)

  The NIT was invalid because there was no adequate evidence of notice to applicant, making the dismissal order void.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ14094875 · 2025-04-25 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10832

  Determinative passage · p.4II. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) However, contrary to WCAB Rules regarding filing and service of documents, lien claimant's representative was not served with the Order dismissing Unicare Surgery Center's lien. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10610, 10615, 10625, 10628.) Because lien claimant's representative was not served with the Order of dismissal, the Petition is timely. The notice of hearing for the lien conference was returned as undeliverable, thus it is not clear that lien claimant received notice of the hearing. (Lab. Code, § 5504; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(d).) Lien claimant's non-attorney representative asserts that they did not receive proper notice of the lien conference hearing, which raises procedural due process concerns as to whether the required notice was received.

  Lien claimant was not properly served with notice of hearing or dismissal order, violating due process and WCAB rules.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17889850 · 2025-04-14 · San Bernadino District Office8 CCR § 10832

  Determinative passage · p.4III. The WCJ may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (a).) A proper purpose includes, but is not limited to, (1) Allowing, disallowing or dismissing a lien; (2) Granting, denying or dismissing a petition; (3) Sanctioning a party; (4) Submitting the matter on the record; or (5) Dismissing an application. (Id.) All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) The "essence of due process is simply notice and the opportunity to be heard." (San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].) Determining an issue without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard violates the parties' rights to due process. (Gangwish v. Workers' Comp.

  Applicant filed Objection within the extended 25-day deadline, so the WCJ's dismissal order was void for being premature.

  Official decision · page 4 →