Petitions and Answers to Petitions. 8 CCR § 10510

What panels did with this rule

Released decisions that named § 10510, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.

• ADJ17889850 · 2025-07-07 · San Bernardino District Office8 CCR § 10510

  Determinative passage · p.53 In the Order of April 17, 2025, as well as in the Report, the WCJ states that the case should be dismissed due to a lack of verification or a signature by applicant, as required by WCAB Rule 10510 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510(d)). (Order, pp. 2-5.) "However, it has long been recognized that lack of verification does not necessitate automatic dismissal of a nonconforming pleading." (Torres v. Contra Costa Schs. Ins. Group (2014) 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 1181, 1186, citing United Farm Workers v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 915; Mullane v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1931) 118 Cal.App. 283, 286; Wings West Airlines v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Nebelon) (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1047 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 609]; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 712, fn.3 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].) A party may correct a lack of verification within a reasonable time after receiving notice of the defect. (Torres v. Contra Costa Schs. Ins. Group, supra, 79 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 1186.) Applicant did not receive notice of the defect prior to the original Order Dismissing Case of January 9, 2025. Applicant has now filed the verified Affidavit on April 24, 2025. We find that applicant has cured the defect of lack of verification.

  Applicant cured the defect by filing a verified affidavit after receiving notice.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13901094 · 2025-06-19 · Salinas District Office8 CCR § 10510

  Determinative passage · p.3II. There are 20 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903.) This time is extended by 5 calendar days if service is made to an address within California. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact on December 13, 2024 and all of the parties served were located in California. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until January 7, 2025 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 20, 2025 is untimely and will be dismissed. We also note that section 5902 requires that a petition for reconsideration be verified. (Lab. Code, § 5902; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510(d).) In Lucena v.

  The petition was filed late and unverified, thus dismissed.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ2030301 · 2024-04-04 · Santa Ana District Office8 CCR § 10510

  Determinative passage · p.2A party intending to appear electronically3 may seek permission to appear electronically at a hearing pursuant to WCAB Rule 10816, by filing a petition pursuant to WCAB Rule 10510.

  Defendant filed a petition under these rules to allow remote testimony.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11199891 · 2024-03-18 · Oakland District Office8 CCR § 10510

  Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION WCAB Rules 10816 and 10510 govern electronic appearances. WCAB Rule 10816 states: "If a party intends to appear electronically at any hearing, they shall file a petition showing good cause pursuant to rule 10510." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10816.) WCAB Rule 10510 requires, among other things, that "a request for action by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board...shall be made by petition." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510.) Here, applicant's request for an electronic appearance lacked the formality typically associated with such a request under the rules, but the Board's rules "serve the convenience of the tribunal and the [litigants] and facilitate the proceedings. They do not deprive the tribunal of the

  The Board found the WCJ's denial was not supported by these rules as the request lacked formality but the rules serve convenience and do not deprive the tribunal of discretion to dispense with compliance when justice requires it.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10199818 · 2023-09-12 · Pomona District Office8 CCR § 10510

  Determinative passage · p.2Additionally, Labor Code section 5902 requires that a petition for reconsideration be verified. (Lab. Code, § 5902; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510(d).) In Lucena v. Diablo Auto Body (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1425 (Significant Panel Decision), it was held that where a petition for reconsideration is not verified as required by section 5902, the petition may be dismissed if the petitioner has been given notice of the defect (either by the WCJ's report or by the respondent's answer) unless, within a reasonable time, the petitioner either: (1) cures the defect by filing a verification; or (2) files an explanation that establishes a compelling reason for the lack of verification and the record establishes that the respondents are not prejudiced by the lack of verification.

  Applicant's petition was not verified and applicant did not cure the defect or provide an explanation.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10371478 · 2023-03-10 · San Francisco District Office8 CCR § 10510

  Determinative passage · p.3The WCJ denies that her ruling was based upon bias. (Report, p. 3.) Instead, the WCJ explains that she denied the request because it failed to comply with the WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure governing requests for electronic hearings, specifically, WCAB Rules 10816, 10510, and 10625. (Report, pp. 3-4.) WCAB Rule 10816 states: "If a party intends to appear electronically at any hearing, they shall file a petition showing good cause pursuant to rule 10510." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10816.) WCAB Rule 10510 requires, among other things, that "a request for action by the [WCAB]...shall be made by petition," and that "[a]ll petitions and answers shall be verified under penalty of perjury...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510.) WCAB Rule 10625 addresses proof of service, and states: "Proof of service" means a "dated and verified declaration identifying the document(s) served and the parties who were served, and stating that the service has been made and the method by which it has been made....If a document is served electronically,

  The WCJ denied the request based on non-compliance with these rules, but the Board found this was a misunderstanding of the rules.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ13460039 · 2022-12-01 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 10510

  Determinative passage · p.3WCAB Rule 10745 authorizes the WCAB to conduct hearings electronically.1 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10745.) WCAB Rules 10815 through 10817 lay out the basic framework governing remote hearings and remote appearances in WCAB proceedings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10815§ 10817.) Even where the WCAB has not elected to hold a hearing electronically, any party may petition to appear electronically by filing a petition demonstrating good cause pursuant to WCAB Rule 10510. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510, 10816(a).)

  Allows parties to petition for electronic appearance by demonstrating good cause.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ4452392 · 2022-01-21 · Santa Ana District Office8 CCR § 10510

  Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition is unverified and will be dismissed.

  The petition was dismissed for lack of verification after notice and opportunity to cure.

  Official decision · page 1 →