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) An Application for Adjudication of Claim, a petition for reconsideration, a petition to reopen or any other petition or other document that is subject to a statute of limitations or a jurisdictional time limitation shall not be rejected for filing solely on the basis that: (1) The document is not filed in the proper office of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board; (2) The document has been submitted without the proper form, or it has been submitted with a form that is either incomplete or contains inaccurate information; or (3) The document has not been submitted with the required document cover sheet and/or document separator sheet(s), or it has been submitted with a document cover sheet and/or document separator sheet(s) not containing all of the required information. (b) A document that is subject to a statute of limitations or a jurisdictional time limitation may be rejected for filing if it does not contain a combination of information sufficient to establish the case or cases to which the document relates or, if it is a case opening document, sufficient information to open an adjudication file. If a document is rejected in accordance with this subdivision, the Administrative Director shall return the document to the filer and shall notify the filer, through the service of a Notice of Document Discrepancy, that the document has not been accepted for filing. The Notice of Document Discrepancy shall specify the nature of the discrepancy(ies) and the date of the attempted filing, and it shall state that the filer shall have 15 days from the service of the Notice within which to correct the discrepancy(ies) and resubmit the document for filing. If the document is corrected and resubmitted for filing within 15 days, or at a later date upon a showing of good cause, it shall be deemed filed as of the original date the document was submitted. (c) Nothing in this rule shall preclude the discretionary or conditional acceptance for the filing of a document that is subject to a statute of limitations or a jurisdictional time limitation, even if it does not contain a combination of information sufficient to establish the case or cases to which the document relates or, if it is a case opening document, sufficient information to open an adjudication file. (d) Where a document that is subject to a statute of limitations or a jurisdictional time limitation has been accepted for filing in accordance with this rule, but the document nevertheless cannot be processed by EAMS, the Administrative Director may serve a copy of the filed document on the filing party, together with a Notice of Document Discrepancy. The notice may specify the nature of the discrepancy(ies) and request that the party correct the discrepancy(ies) within 15 days after service of the Notice, however, a failure to timely correct the discrepancy(ies) shall not nullify the acceptance of the document for filing. (e) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to excuse non-compliance with any of other provisions of the rules of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or non-compliance with the rules of the Administrative Director. Any such non-compliance may still give rise to monetary sanctions, attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code section 5813 and rule 10421.
Authority and history
Note: Authority cited: Article XIV, Section 4, California Constitution; and Sections 133, 5307, 5309 and 5708, Labor Code. Reference: Sections 126, 5316, 5500, 5501 and 5813, Labor Code.
1. Renumbering and amendment of former section 10397 to section 10617 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 § 10617, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.
- ADJ12849972 · 2025-05-19 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10617
Determinative passage · p.3In her Petition, applicant states that she attempted to file an appeal letter on January 22 and February 11, 2025, but both were rejected. From our review of the matter in EAMS, there is no indication of either of these attempts to file an appeal. Under WCAB Rule 10617, her attempts to file may have allowed her Petition to be timely. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10617.)
Consideration of attempts to file may allow a petition to be timely; here no indication of attempts was found in EAMS.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ20015360 · 2024-12-06 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 10617
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that defendant City of Los Angeles has sought reconsideration of the decision issued on June 4, 2024, by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) under Labor Code1 section 3201.7. The Petition for Reconsideration is attached as an exhibit to the Writ of Review filed with the Second Appellate District on October 28, 2024, and served on the Appeals Board at WCABWritUnit@dir.ca.gov.
The Appeals Board reviewed the procedural history and rules regarding filing and timeliness, accepted the petition despite email filing error, and granted reconsideration to ensure due process.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ2452007 · 2024-11-04 · Lodi District Office8 CCR § 10617
Determinative passage · p.13Labor Code section 5709 states that "No informality in any proceeding or in the manner of taking testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, award, or rule made and filed as specified in this division..." (Lab. Code, § 5709.) "All hearings and investigations...may make inquiry in the manner...best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and carry out justly the spirit and provisions of this division." (Lab. Code, § 5708, emphasis added.) Necessarily, failure to comply with the rules as to details is not jurisdictional. (citation)" (Rubio v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 196, 200-201 (Rubio); see, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10517, 10617.) Specifically, a petition for removal (or reconsideration) will not be rejected "solely on the basis that...(2) The document has been submitted without the proper form..." or is incomplete in form. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10617(a).) "If a party is disadvantaged by the insufficiency of a pleading, the remedy is to grant that party a reasonable continuance to permit it to prepare its case or defense. (citations)" (Rubio, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 200-201.)
Applied to reject WCJ's refusal to transmit lien claimant's removal petition due to form issues.
Official decision · page 13 → - ADJ2452007 · 2024-04-22 · Lodi District Office8 CCR § 10617
Determinative passage · p.10Labor Code section 5709 states that "No informality in any proceeding or in the manner of taking testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, award, or rule made and filed as specified in this division..." (Lab. Code, § 5709.) "All hearings and investigations...may make inquiry in the manner...best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and carry out justly the spirit and provisions of this division." (Lab. Code, § 5708, emphasis added.) Necessarily, failure to comply with the rules as to details is not jurisdictional. (citation)" (Rubio v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 196, 200-201 (Rubio); see, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10517, 10617.) Specifically, a petition for removal (or reconsideration) will not be rejected "solely on the basis that...(2) The document has been submitted without the proper form..." or is incomplete in form. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10617(a).) "If a party is disadvantaged by the insufficiency of a pleading, the remedy is to grant that party a reasonable continuance to permit it to prepare its case or defense. (citations)" (Rubio, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 200-201.)
WCAB found the WCJ erred in rejecting Med-1's informal request for extension and that good cause existed to extend the deadline.
Official decision · page 10 → - ADJ1663481 · 2024-03-06 · San Bernardino District Office8 CCR § 10617
Determinative passage · p.6Cases 274]); (3) pleading should liberally construed so as not to defeat or undermine an injured employee's right to make a claim (Sarabi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 925§ 926 [72 Cal. Comp. Cases 778]); Martino, supra, 103 Cal. App. 4th at p., 490; Rubio, supra, 165 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 199§ 201; Aprahamian, supra, 109 Cal. App. 3d at pp.152§ 153; Blanchard, supra, 53 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 594§ 595; Beaida, supra, 263 Cal. App. 2d at pp. 208§ 209); and (4) technically deficient pleadings, if they give notice and are timely, normally do not deprive the Board of jurisdiction (Bland, supra, 3 Cal. 3d at pp. 331§ 332 & see fn. 13; Rivera, supra, 190 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1456; Aprahamian, supra, 109 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 152§ 153; Blanchard, supra, 53 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 594§ 595; Beaida, supra, 263 Cal. App. 2d at pp. 208§ 210). Reflecting these principles, current WCAB Rule 10617 (former Rule 10397) provides:
Applied to support liberal pleading and filing principles favoring adjudication on the merits.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ8310173 · 2023-12-11 · Pomona District Office8 CCR § 10617
Determinative passage · p.6that the Act disfavors application of formalistic rules of procedure that would defeat an employee's entitlement to rehabilitation benefits." (Martino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 485, 490 [67 Cal. Comp. Cases 1273].) Courts have repeatedly rejected pleading technicalities as grounds for depriving the Board of jurisdiction. (Rubio v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 196, 200§ 01 [50 Cal. Comp. Cases 160]; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 109 Cal. App. 3d 148, 152§ 153 [45 Cal. Comp. Cases 866].) Moreover, section 5709 states that "[n]o informality in any proceeding or in the manner of taking testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, award, or rule made and filed as specified in this division..." (Lab. Code, § 5709.) "Necessarily, failure to comply with the rules as to details is not jurisdictional." (Rubio, supra, at pp. 200§ 201; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10492, now § 10517.)
The Board emphasized adjudication on merits over technical defects, rejecting defendant's argument about wrong case number filing.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ10128923 · 2023-12-11 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10617
Determinative passage · p.4Even assuming for the purposes of argument that there is a requirement that a lien claimant file liens in all possible adjudication numbers, so that lien claimant's pleadings here are procedurally defective, we observe that the principles of "liberal pleading" have infused California's statutory landscape for more than 150 years. Enacted in 1872, Code of Civil Procedure section 452 requires that, "[i]n the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties." Also enacted in 1872, Code of Civil Procedure section 473 provides in pertinent part, "[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (Cal.
Technical defects in lien filings do not bar claims if they give notice and are timely; substantial justice is favored.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ8453702 · 2022-10-10 · Redding District Office8 CCR § 10617
Determinative passage · p.1Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10617, the WCJ may treat the Stipulations with Request for Award as a pleading that demonstrates the parties' desire to re-initiate this claim regardless of the prior order dismissing case. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10617.) It appears that medical benefits have continued to be paid and that the WCJ has jurisdiction to approve the parties' settlement.
Allows the WCJ to treat Stipulations with Request for Award as a pleading to re-initiate a claim regardless of prior dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 →
Rules beside this one
Article 9. Filing and Service of Documents — regulations rarely stand alone, and the answer is often two sections away.