When they must send it
• First: Within 14 days of the date of knowledge of injury and disability. • Subsequent: Not later than the determination date specified in the previous delay notice.
The deadline this notice puts on you
You must notify me in writing of your objection to the determination of the treating physician within thirty days of the date you received the treating physician’s report.
Quoted from the model notice below. Your letter should say the same — if it does not, that is worth asking about.
Rule text
California Labor Code § 4062 · 20 unspecified
Trigger: receipt of the treating physician report
(a) If either the employee or employer objects to a medical determination made by the treating physician concerning any medical issues not covered by Section 4060 or 4061 and not subject to Section 4610, the objecting party shall notify the other party in writing of the objection within 20 days of receipt of the report if the employee is represented by an attorney or within 30 days of receipt of the report if the employee is not represented by an attorney.…
California Labor Code § 4062 · 30 unspecified
Trigger: receipt of the treating physician report
(a) If either the employee or employer objects to a medical determination made by the treating physician concerning any medical issues not covered by Section 4060 or 4061 and not subject to Section 4610, the objecting party shall notify the other party in writing of the objection within 20 days of receipt of the report if the employee is represented by an attorney or within 30 days of receipt of the report if the employee is not represented by an attorney.…
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(a)(2)
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 TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS DELAY 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. Although liability for your workers' compensation injury has been accepted, I cannot pay you temporary disability benefits for the period DATE through DATE at this time because REASON FOR DELAY. I need to obtain the following information in order to make a determination: Specify INFORMATION REQUIRED to make determination. I expect to advise you of the status of these benefits by DATE. [If benefit is delayed for medical issue and the claims administrator is requesting a …
Published by the Division of Workers’ Compensation in the Benefit Notice Instruction Manual. Excerpt — read the full manual at the source. p.15.
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.
- ADJ9826933 · 2026-06-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5II. The WCJ found that applicant was permanent and stationary or maximum medically improved (MMI) on July 12, 2023 (Finding of Fact No. 4). Defendant agrees that applicant was MMI on July 12, 2023, when Dr. Hyman assigned him 75% WPI. (Petition, at p. 3:18-19; 4:1-6.) Then, defendant contends that permanent total disability payments should therefore begin on July 12, 2023. In our en banc decision, Brower v. David Jones Constr. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550, we addressed the timing of permanent disability indemnity payments in relation to payment of temporary disability benefits.
The Board followed the en banc precedent in Brower, holding that permanent total disability indemnity payments start from the date permanent total disability is first established, not from the date the final level of disability is determined, thus payments start June 9, 2016, not July 12, 2023.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ21050654 · 2026-06-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5The issue before us is whether applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits where applicant's employment was terminated the day after the industrial injury because his work permit expired, and applicant has not been legally permitted to work since. Here, we find the record is sufficient to affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits from the date he stopped working, for the reasons set forth in the Report. Defendant has not met its burden of proof necessary to establish that defendant made applicant a bona fide offer of modified work to relieve itself of liability to pay applicant temporary disability benefits.2
The defendant failed to prove that a bona fide offer of modified work was made or that modified work was actually available to the applicant within his restrictions, despite the applicant's termination due to an expired work permit. The WCJ's credibility determinations were upheld, and the evidence did not meet the burden of proof to relieve the defendant of liability for temporary disability benefits.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ15295325 · 2026-06-15 · Sacramento District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7However, we affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant was not precluded from vocational rehabilitation and that she was not completely shut out of the labor market for the reasons stated in the Report, which we quote below:
The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was not precluded from vocational rehabilitation and was not completely shut out of the labor market, thus did not rebut the scheduled rating.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ19532643 · 2026-05-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7At trial, when the Applicant was presented with this deposition testimony, she explained that she may have misspoken at the deposition, and that it was more a desire to retire just from CVS, (MOH/SOE page 6, lines 12-14). She stated that she is planning to renew her pharmaceutical license, and that as of the date of trial, she was taking the necessary classes towards that end, (MOH/SOE page 5, lines 9-12). She further testified that a job in the pharmaceutical field was offered to her sometime in April or May of 2024, but due to her shoulder injury, she did not accept it, and that she does not [at this time] feel comfortable returning to the work force, (MOH/SOE page 5, lines 17-25). She is currently looking online for work opportunities, and testified that when she retired from CVS, she told management that she was intending to retire from that company only, (MOH/SOE page 6, lines 1-5). No witnesses from management at CVS provided testimony contradicting the last statement.
The WCJ found applicant intended to retire only from the employer, not the labor market entirely, supported by credible trial testimony showing willingness to work post-retirement despite injury, and no contrary evidence from defendant.
Official decision · page 7 →