When they must send it
• Within 14 days after the employer's date of knowledge of the entitlement to additional benefits.
The deadline this notice puts on you
This notice does not itself start a clock against you.
Rule text
8 CCR § 9812 · 14 unspecified
Trigger: after the last payment which was made before the change
Other notices concerning changed payments shall be sent before or with the changed payment, but not later than 14 days after the last payment which was made before the change
Quoted from the statute, marked computed. The deadline table is a draft extraction — read the official code if the two disagree.
The rule behind it
8 CCR §9812(b)
The official model notice
BENEFIT NOTICE INSTRUCTION MANUAL Claims Administrator Name Address City_State_Zip Telephone Number [include if available] Website address Date [Option] SENT VIA E-MAIL TO employee’s e- mail address Employee Employer: Address Date of Injury: City_State_Zip Claim Number: NOTICE REGARDING INDEMNITY BENEFITS PAYMENT RESUME CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR NAME is handling your workers' compensation claim on behalf of EMPLOYER NAME. This notice is to advise you of the status of disability benefits for your workers' compensation injury on the date shown above. Payment is being resumed for BENEFIT TYPE and is (select one) enclosed / sent separately / included in your paycheck for the period starting DATE through DATE in the amount of $ AMOUNT. Your weekly compensation rate is $ RATE based on your average weekly earnings of $ AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE. Payments will be sent to you [choose a. or b.: a. (for TD/PD:) every two weeks on DAY OF THE WEEK. b. (for salary continuation:) on your regular payday. An explanation of the salary continuation plan specific to your employer is included with this notice.] …
Published by the Division of Workers’ Compensation in the Benefit Notice Instruction Manual. Excerpt — read the full manual at the source. p.26.
Source · dir.ca.gov →When this went wrong
Decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on this subject. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF.
- ADJ19773230 · 2026-07-28 · Lodi District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5We agree with the WCJ that the rejection of liability was unreasonable, and that the penalty was warranted. Defendant makes much of when a defendant’s duty to investigate a claim first arises. Regardless of when such a duty arises generally, in this case applicant testified that his employer told him that the paperwork for his workers’ compensation case had been initiated soon after the injury, and the WCJ found this testimony credible. In fact, this testimony was completely corroborated by the fact that applicant received a denial on July 23, 2004, a little more than two months after his injury. The denial expressly refers to “your workers’ compensation claim” and “your cardiac claim.” The denial states that it was made “after careful review and consideration” and acknowledges applicant’s upcoming cardiac appointment at Stanford. Although the grounds for the denial were that there was no “substantial medical, legal or factual evidence to support a confirmed diagnosis for a heart condition,” applicant’s co-worker’s and supervisor had witnessed applicant’s injury or its immediate after-effects, saw him transported to the emergency room, where he was admitted to the hospital.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ18902547 · 2026-07-27 · Riverside District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10This WCALJ awarded sanctions in the form of attorney fees pursuant to CCR 10421, CCR 10545, and Labor Code 5813. It was determined that the defendant failed to comply with CCR 9795.4 in which the language states that defendant shall pay within 60 days of receipt of billing or object. Neither was done. The failure to perform a mandatory action appears willful. Petitioner did not show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
The WCJ awarded sanctions in the form of attorney fees, but the Appeals Board found no irreparable harm or significant prejudice to defendant and upheld the award.
Official decision · page 10 → - ADJ16635028 · 2026-06-26 · Long Beach District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Whether Sanctions Should be Imposed Against Lien Claimant and/or their Representative [t]he regulations mandate that lien claimants appear at all lien conferences, either in person or by attorney or non-attorney representative.1 The failure to appear at a hearing is sanctionable conduct.2 Sanctions are appropriate for failures to appear where a reasonable excuse is not offered or the offending party has demonstrated a pattern of such conduct.3 (Emphasis added.)
The tribunal found that Paperwork & More had notice of the hearing and failed to offer a reasonable excuse for non-appearance; sanctions were appropriate and imposed jointly and severally on Paperwork & More and Stanley B. Johnson, but not on Premier Psychological Services.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ118647 · 2026-06-08 · San Diego District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10Applicant did not meet her burden of showing that she should be awarded a penalty on late mileage for treatment for her neck and bilateral shoulders. She did not identify any particular mileage reimbursement request that was late. She did not indicate when they were sent to Defendant or when she received payment. Teri Thompson, program coordinator for the City of San Diego and current adjuster for Applicant's claim, credibly testified that she had issues with Applicant's mileage reimbursement requests. The issues varied but sometimes the requests were not legible, or had dates of service that were cut off, or were requesting mileage for treatment for body parts that were not industrial body parts, or were requesting mileage where the location where treatment occurred was not clear. When problems with mileage requests were noted, applicant would receive in writing why there was a problem with her mileage requests (May 22, 2025 Summary of Evidence, page 2, lines 10-22). For the reasons stated above, applicant did not meet her burden of showing that she should be awarded a penalty for late mileage reimbursement.
Applicant failed to identify any specific late mileage reimbursement request or prove entitlement to a penalty for late reimbursement.
Official decision · page 10 →