Petition to Dismiss Inactive Cases. 8 CCR § 10550

What panels did with this rule

Released decisions that named § 10550, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.

• ADJ16708894 · 2026-03-30 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10550

  Determinative passage · p.6Both WCAB Rules 10550(f) and 10850(b) prohibit orders of dismissal that contain a clause rendering the order null and void if an objection showing good cause is filed. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550(f), 10850(b).) These orders are commonly referred to as "self-destruct" orders. The August 2, 2024 Order of dismissal issued by WCJ Sommer contained the following clause: "Timely Objection within 20 days showing good cause will void this order." Applicant timely filed an objection on August 6, 2024.

  The August 2, 2024 dismissal order was void ab initio as it was a prohibited 'self-destruct' order under Rule 10550(f).

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17889850 · 2025-07-07 · San Bernardino District Office8 CCR § 10550

  Determinative passage · p.4As discussed in the previous Opinion and Order by the Appeals Board, 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. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584], citing Rucker, supra, at pp. 157-158.) Due process requires

  The WCJ's order was void because it was issued before applicant's response deadline and without proper notice; due process requires the case be heard on the merits.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16905183 · 2025-04-03 · San Diego District Office8 CCR § 10550

  Determinative passage · p.4Additionally, we find it important here to highlight the fact that on September 27, 2024, applicant filed a notice of change of address informing the parties of her new address in Arizona. Subsequent to this filing, defendant served applicant with a letter notifying her of their intent to dismiss her claim under WCAB Rule 10550, which states, in relevant part that:

  Defendant's petition for dismissal was premature because it was filed before the 30-day notice period expired, extended by 10 days due to applicant's out-of-state address.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16866401 · 2025-03-28 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10550

  Determinative passage · p.4II. Turning to the merits of the Petition, WCAB Rule 10550(a) provides for administrative dismissal of inactive cases not activated for hearing within one year after the filing of the Application for Adjudication of Claim or the entry of an order taking off calendar, after notice and opportunity to be heard. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550(a).) Relevant here, WCAB Rule 10550 states in pertinent part: (a) Unless a case is activated for hearing within one year after the filing of the Application

  Provides for administrative dismissal of inactive cases not activated for hearing within one year after filing or order taking off calendar, after notice and opportunity to be heard.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17611095 · 2025-02-21 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10550

  Determinative passage · p.5applicant notice and an opportunity to be heard, dismissal is discretionary, not mandatory. (Roth v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 452 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 604].) There is a strong public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits rather than on procedural grounds. (Bland v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 324 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 513]; Marino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 485 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1273].)

  The WCJ should have sustained applicant's objection or set the matter for hearing rather than dismissing the cases after applicant demonstrated ongoing treatment and willingness to proceed.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ12320904 · 2025-01-27 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10550

  Determinative passage · p.5II. WCAB Rule 10550 provides for administrative dismissal of a case not activated for hearing within one year after the filing of the Application for Adjudication of Claim or the entry of an order taking off calendar, after notice and opportunity to be heard. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550(a).) A letter must be sent to applicant and applicant's attorney, at least 30 days prior to the filing of the petition to dismiss, letting applicant know that a petition will be filed unless applicant objects in writing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550(b).) The petition must be filed with a copy of the letter and served on all parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550(c), (e).) The case may be dismissed after issuance of a 10-day notice of intention (NIT) to dismiss and an opportunity to be heard. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550(f), 10832.) Under WCAB Rule 10550, dismissal is discretionary, not mandatory. (Roth v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 452, 458 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 604].) There is a strong public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits rather than on procedural grounds. (Bland v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 324 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 513]; Martino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 485 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1273]; Moore v. Waste Mgmt. (2014) 2014 Cal.Wrk.Comp.P.D.

  Applicant must have notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissal; here, she did not receive notice, so due process was not satisfied.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ14935109 · 2024-11-27 · Santa Ana District Office8 CCR § 10550

  Determinative passage · p.4(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550.) WCAB Rule 10625(d), requires that "where a party receives notification that the service to one or more parties failed, the server shall re-serve the document on all intended recipients and execute a new proof of service, or provide a courtesy copy to the recipient on whom service failed, within a reasonable amount of time." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(d).) WCAB Rule 10832 requires, in pertinent part, that (a) The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including dismissing an application; and (b) that a Notice of Intention may be served by designated service in accordance with rule 10629. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.) Due process requires that a party be provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

  Defendant failed to comply with the 30-day notice and service requirements, invalidating the Petition to Dismiss and the dismissal order.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ14328080 · 2024-10-16 · San Diego District Office8 CCR § 10550

  Determinative passage · p.3In the instant case, defendant failed to serve applicant with a copy of the letter indicating defendant's intention to seek dismissal of the claim in contravention to WCAB Rule 10550(b). Defendant served only applicant's attorney and American Claims Management. As indicated by the WCJ, failure to serve notice to applicant not only makes defendant's Petition to Dismiss defective, but "violates applicant's right to due process." (Report, p. 3.)

  Defendant's failure to serve applicant with notice rendered the Petition to Dismiss defective and violated due process.

  Official decision · page 3 →