Where this sits
- Chapter 4.5.
- Division of Workers' Compensation
- Subchapter 2. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board--Rules and Practice Procedure
- Article 9. Filing and Service of Documents
The regulation, as printed
(a) When any document is served by mail, fax, e-mail or any method other than personal service, the period of time for exercising or performing any right or duty to act or respond shall be extended by: (1) Five calendar days from the date of service, if the place of address and the place of mailing of the party, attorney or other agent of record being served is within California; (2) Ten calendar days from the date of service, if the place of address and the place of mailing of the party, attorney or other agent of record being served is outside of California but within the United States; and (3) Twenty calendar days from the date of service, if the place of address and the place of mailing of the party, attorney or other agent of record being served is outside the United States. (b) For purposes of this rule, “place of address and the place of mailing” means the street address or Post Office Box of the party, attorney or other agent of record being served, as reflected in the Official Address Record at the time of service, even if the method of service actually used was fax, e-mail or other agreed-upon method of service.
Authority and history
Note: Authority cited: Sections 133, 5307, 5309 and 5708, Labor Code. Reference: Section 5316, Labor Code.
1. New section filed 12-19-2002; operative 1-1-2003. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11351 (Register 2002, No. 51). 2. Renumbering of former section 10605 to section 10680 and renumbering and amendment of former section 10507 to section 10605 filed 12-17-2019; operative 1-1-2020. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11351 (Register 2019, No. 51).
What panels did with this rule
Released decisions that named § 10605, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.
- ADJ20567579 · 2026-05-22 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 10605
Determinative passage · p.2I. We first address the timeliness of defendant's petition. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).) 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.
The defendant's petition was initially filed with the wrong case number but was accepted as timely after correction.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ2419734 · 2026-05-07 · San Francisco District Office8 CCR § 10605
Determinative passage · p.4This 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, 656]; 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, 1011]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73, 75§ 76].)
The Board found the petition untimely and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ12332497 · 2026-04-30 · Santa Ana District Office8 CCR § 10605
Determinative passage · p.3WCAB Rule 10605 provides that when a document is served, the time to respond is extended by ten (10) days when it is served on a party outside of California. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(2).) To be clear, and to allow all parties equal time to respond, we shall apply WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2) to all responding parties, whether outside of California or not. Briefing shall be filed in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order plus an additional ten (10) days for mailing, so that all parties have thirty (30) days to respond. Untimely or misfiled responses may not be accepted or considered.
Extended time to respond to documents served, applied to all parties equally.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ12333976 · 2026-03-19 · Riverside District Office8 CCR § 10605
Determinative passage · p.4Turning now to the merits of the Petition, we remind the parties that there are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be considered timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).) 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].)
The WCAB found the February 1, 2021 injury findings final and binding because no timely petition for reconsideration was filed, making the August 16, 2021 contrary findings void.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ3206096 · 2026-03-13 · Marina del Rey District Office8 CCR § 10605
Determinative passage · p.2II. Next, we address the timeliness of applicant's petition. The Proof of Service for the November 10, 2025 Findings of Fact indicates defective service on applicant by including the wrong state for applicant's Las Vegas address (California ("CA") rather than Nevada ("NV"). Where the service of a decision is defective, the statutory time period for filing a petition for reconsideration does not begin to run until the decision is actually received. (See Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Phillips) (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1, 3 [43
The petition was filed on December 18, 2025, within 30 days of service on November 20, 2025, and the Appeals Board acted on March 13, 2026, within 60 days of transmission on January 12, 2026.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ12006252 · 2026-02-09 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 10605
Determinative passage · p.3Here, the F&A was served on September 19, 2025 to official addresses of record all located within California. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had 25 days, or until Tuesday, October 14, 2025, to file a timely petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's F&A. The Petition for Reconsideration was received by the Los Angeles WCAB district office on December 5, 2025, which is untimely at 77 days after the F&A was served. Thus, the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the Petition for Reconsideration.
The Petition for Reconsideration was received 77 days after the Findings and Award was served, thus untimely and not subject to Board jurisdiction.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ14247731 · 2026-02-02 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 10605
Determinative passage · p.3last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).) In addition, a Petition for Reconsideration filed via EAMS3 is deemed filed on the date received by the Appeals Board if it is received prior to 5:00 p.m. on a court day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10615(b).) Any Petition for Reconsideration "received after 5:00 p.m. of a court day shall be deemed filed as of the next court day." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10615(b).)
Applied to determine the petition was untimely and must be dismissed.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ12634746 · 2025-11-07 · Lodi District Office8 CCR § 10605
Determinative passage · p.3(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, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&O) on June 20, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, July 15, 2025 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on August 25, 2025 is untimely and must be dismissed.
The petition was filed after the 25-day period, so the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
Official decision · page 3 →
Rules beside this one
Article 9. Filing and Service of Documents — regulations rarely stand alone, and the answer is often two sections away.
- § 10602Formal Permanent Disability Rating Determinations. [Renumbered]1 decisions
- § 10603Oversized Exhibits, Diagnostic Imaging, Physical Exhibits, and Exhibits on Media. [Renumbered]
- § 10604Certified Copies. [Repealed]
- § 10606Physicians' Reports as Evidence. [Renumbered]
- § 10606.5Vocational Experts' Reports as Evidence. [Renumbered]
- § 10607Computer Printouts of Benefits Paid. [Repealed]