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.

• ADJ18995801 · 2026-09-10 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 10832

  Determinative passage · p.3We first address the defendant’s objection to the notice of intent to impose sanctions. Per WCAB Rule 10832, “The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bord may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including, but not limited to: …(3)Sanctioning a party.” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10832.) A notice of intention (NIT) is neither an order, decision, or action ripe for removal or reconsideration. As such, the petition for removal as to the NIT is premature, and thus further proceedings on the issue of potential sanctions must be addressed by the WCJ in the first instance upon return of this matter. We agree with the WCJ that all parties must identify their full legal name including the names of the employer, insurance company, and any third-party administrator and failure to do so may subject the offending party to sanctions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10390, 10400, 10402; DiFusco v. Hands On Spa et al (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases __ (Appeals Bd. en banc); Coldiron v. Compuware Corp. (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 289 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Moreover, all parties have an ongoing obligation to promptly update the official participant record if changes occur throughout the span of a case. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.

  The Board found the NIT is not ripe for removal or reconsideration and must be addressed by the WCJ first.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10293027 · 2026-07-20 · Riverside District Office8 CCR § 10832

  Determinative passage · p.13act on a petition. section 5909(b)(2) provides that service of the Report and Recommendation shall be notice of transmission. Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on May 21, 2026, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on May 21, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on May 21, 2026. II WCAB Rule 10832(e) requires that “[a]n order with a clause rendering the order null and void if an objection is received is not a Notice of Intention and must be served by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832(e).) In this case, the WCJ’s prior order allowing third-party credit contained a clause rendering the order null and void if an objection is received, and the order was not served by the WCAB as required by WCAB Rule 10832(e).

  The WCJ's prior order allowing third-party credit was not served by the WCAB as required, rendering the order unenforceable.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• 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 →